CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kerrigan Iron Works, Inc. v. Cook Truck Lines, Inc.

This case concerns a dispute where Kerrigan Iron Works, Inc., a shipper, sought an injunction against common carriers and Teamsters Local 327. The carriers, including Cook Truck Lines and Hoover Motor Express, refused customary service to Kerrigan due to Local 327 employees not crossing picket lines set by another union (Iron Workers) at Kerrigan's plants. Kerrigan argued this refusal violated state common law and statutes regarding a carrier's public duty. The Chancery Court granted a permanent injunction, which Local 327 appealed, asserting federal labor law preemption and contractual rights to refuse service. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the union's conduct was not a federally protected activity or unfair labor practice, nor was there an exclusive federal remedy, thus preserving state court jurisdiction to enforce common carrier duties.

Labor DisputeInjunctionCommon Carrier DutyState Court JurisdictionFederal PreemptionNational Labor Relations ActPicket LineUnfair Labor PracticesConcerted ActivitiesContract Law
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Davis v. United Air Lines, Inc.

The plaintiff, Thomas Davis, a former "ramp serviceman" for United Air Lines, Inc., sued his employer following his dismissal due to a physical disability (epilepsy). He alleged wrongful dismissal in violation of Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, asserting a claim as a third-party beneficiary of a federal contract and a violation of a collective bargaining agreement which he claimed incorporated the Act's affirmative action provisions. Chief Judge Weinstein granted the defendant's motion to dismiss. The court ruled that there is no private right of action under Section 503, as established in a prior appeal concerning the same plaintiff (Davis v. United Air Lines, Inc.), and that allowing a third-party beneficiary claim would be inconsistent with the legislative scheme. Furthermore, the plaintiff's claim under the collective bargaining agreement was dismissed as he failed to exhaust the mandatory Railway Labor Act procedures, and his "futility" argument was rejected.

Rehabilitation ActWrongful DismissalThird-Party BeneficiaryCollective Bargaining AgreementDisability DiscriminationRailway Labor ActMotion to DismissPrivate Right of ActionFederal Contract LawAffirmative Action
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Lessner

This is an appeal by the claimants from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 29, 1963, which modified a determination of a Referee relating to the eligibility of claimants for benefits during the period of a strike. The claimants, primarily longshoremen and other land-based workers, were unable to work due to picket lines established by seamen against employers like United States Lines Co. and Grace Line, Inc. The Board found that each pier constituted a separate establishment and that claimants lost employment due to a strike in their establishment. While affirming the Board's decision for most claimants, the court reversed and remitted the cases of specific individuals (Donnelly, Di Meceli, Kinahan, Kerins, Farrer, and Lessner) who were unemployed prior to the establishment of picket lines, clarifying that their loss of employment could not be attributed to the subsequent strike at that time.

Unemployment Insurance BenefitsLongshoremen StrikeSeamen's Picket LinesEstablishment DefinitionEmployment RelationshipEligibility for BenefitsCollective Bargaining AgreementSeniority SystemAppellate ReviewLabor Dispute
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reynolds v. Ozark Motor Lines, Inc.

This case, heard by the Tennessee Supreme Court, reviewed a judgment from the Court of Appeals which had reversed jury verdicts for the plaintiffs and dismissed their suit against Ozark Motor Lines, Inc. The plaintiffs, former team truck drivers for Ozark, were discharged after refusing to drive a truck without adequate time for a safety inspection, citing violations of the Tennessee Motor Carriers Act. The Court of Appeals found no basis for a public policy exception to the employment at-will law. This Court, however, reinstated the trial court's judgment, affirming that retaliatory discharge is actionable when an employer violates a clear statutory public policy. The Court emphasized that refusing to violate safety regulations designed for public welfare is protected conduct, and the jury verdicts supporting the plaintiffs' claim were backed by material evidence.

Retaliatory DischargeEmployment At-Will DoctrinePublic Policy ExceptionMotor Carrier Safety ActDriver Safety RegulationsTruck InspectionWrongful TerminationJury Verdict ReinstatementAppellate ReviewStatutory Violation
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Interstate Commerce Commission v. Atlas Van Lines, Inc.

The Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) filed suit against Atlas Van Lines, Inc. for violating regulations related to owner-operator payments and escrow funds, stemming from issues with its agent, Thomas Van & Storage, Inc., which subsequently declared bankruptcy. Atlas conceded liability for past regulatory breaches but argued against a general injunction, contending that the issues with the bankrupt agent were moot and that it had implemented a new compliance program. The Court, however, found that Atlas had a history of consistent non-compliance, indicating a significant risk of future violations. Consequently, the Court granted the ICC's motion for summary judgment and issued a permanent injunction against Atlas to prevent further violations of ICC regulations.

Interstate Commerce CommissionAtlas Van LinesSummary JudgmentPermanent InjunctionMotor CarrierOwner-OperatorLeasing RegulationsEscrow FundsRegulatory ComplianceBankruptcy
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Marshall v. Atlantic Container Line, GIE

The Secretary of Labor alleged that Atlantic Container Line (ACL) violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) by involuntarily retiring employees at age 62, while ACL contended these retirements were exempt under ADEA § 4(f)(2). The court had previously denied summary judgment, noting factual questions regarding whether a 1974 amendment to ACL's pension plan constituted a subterfuge to evade the ADEA and if ACL relied in good faith on administrative regulations. Upon review of stipulated facts, the court found no evidence of subterfuge in ACL's plan amendment, which aimed to create promotional opportunities and harmonize retirement ages. Furthermore, ACL successfully established a good faith defense under the Portal-to-Portal Act, having relied on official administrative regulations despite conflicting advice from a Department of Labor representative. Consequently, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted.

Age DiscriminationEmployment ActPension PlanSubterfugeGood Faith DefenseSummary JudgmentMandatory RetirementEmployer LiabilityStatutory InterpretationDepartment of Labor
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Amalgamated Transit Union v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.

Plaintiffs, the Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1202, sought a temporary injunction against Greyhound Lines, arguing that Greyhound violated a New York City ordinance (Administrative Code § 22-502) by employing and transporting "strikebreakers" during a strike. Greyhound cross-moved for dismissal, contending that the local ordinance was preempted by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and thus violated the Supremacy Clause. The court analyzed the federal preemption doctrine in labor disputes and concluded that the local law directly interfered with the federally recognized right of employers to hire replacement workers. Consequently, the court found both causes of action under Administrative Code § 22-502 (a) and (c) to be barred by federal preemption. The complaint was dismissed, Greyhound's cross-motion was granted, and the motion for a preliminary injunction was denied as moot.

Strikebreaker ordinanceFederal preemptionNational Labor Relations ActSupremacy ClauseLabor disputeTemporary injunctionComplaint dismissalReplacement workersNew York City Administrative CodeLabor law
References
21
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 03683 [218 AD3d 446]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 05, 2023

Gamez v. New Line Structures & Dev., LLC

The plaintiff Carlos J. Gamez, a carpenter, sustained injuries after falling through an unmarked and unsecured hole on a work deck during construction. He and his wife commenced an action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) against New Line Structures & Development, LLC, Hallets Building 1 SPE, LLC, and Hallets Astoria, LLC. The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability, which the Supreme Court, Queens County, denied. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the defendants raised a triable issue of fact regarding whether Gamez's own conduct was the sole proximate cause of his injuries, despite the plaintiffs' prima facie showing of a Labor Law § 240 (1) violation.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewProximate CauseComparative NegligenceFall ProtectionSafety DevicesPremises Liability
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas International Airlines, Inc. v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n International

Texas International Airlines (T.I.) filed a complaint against the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), alleging an unlawful strike/work stoppage in violation of the Railway Labor Act and seeking injunctive relief and damages. The court issued several temporary restraining orders to prevent disruptive tactics like slowdowns and excessive equipment write-ups by ALPA members. ALPA counterclaimed for breach of contract and sought to vacate the restraining orders. The court granted T.I.'s application for a preliminary injunction, finding a substantial likelihood that ALPA members were engaged in concerted action to disrupt operations. However, the court denied T.I.'s application to hold ALPA in contempt, citing insufficient clear and convincing evidence to establish union liability under the 'mass action' theory or for official encouragement or ratification of violations.

Railway Labor ActLabor DisputePreliminary InjunctionContempt of CourtWork StoppageSlowdownAirline IndustryUnion LiabilityCollective BargainingFederal Court
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 18, 2017

TransAtlantic Lines LLC v. American Steamship Owners Mutual Protection & Indemnity Ass'n

TransAtlantic Lines LLC sought to overturn an adverse insurance coverage decision by the Board of Directors of American Steamship Owners Mutual Protection and Indemnity Association, following a shipping accident. TransAtlantic argued for a de novo review, asserting the alternative dispute resolution (ADR) process was fundamentally unfair due to the Board's inherent financial bias and violated public policy. The district court, however, applied the contractually agreed-upon "arbitrary and capricious" standard of review. The court rejected TransAtlantic's claims of bias and public policy violations, finding that TransAtlantic had voluntarily consented to the ADR framework. Consequently, the court upheld the Board's decision to deny coverage for attorney's fees, U.S. Government cargo losses, and perishable cargo expenses, concluding that these denials were not arbitrary or capricious.

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)Insurance Coverage DisputeSummary JudgmentArbitrary and Capricious StandardContract LawMarine InsuranceJudicial Review of ArbitrationWaiver of RightsPublic Policy ExceptionAttorney Ethics
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 7,909 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational