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
Jul 06, 1994

Active Glass Corp. v. Architectural & Ornamental Iron Workers Local Union 580

Active Glass Corp. sought to enjoin a labor arbitration demanded by Iron Union and Iron Funds, proposing instead a multiparty arbitration with Glaziers and Carpenters unions and their respective funds. Iron cross-moved to compel bilateral arbitration with Active, while Glaziers and Carpenters sought dismissal of Active's petition. The court confirmed the existence of an arbitration agreement between Active and Iron for the underlying dispute. Citing recent Second Circuit precedent, the court ruled it lacked authority to compel multiparty arbitration absent the parties' explicit consent. Consequently, Active's motion for preliminary injunction and multiparty arbitration was denied, and Iron's motion to compel bilateral arbitration was granted.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor DisputePreliminary InjunctionSummary JudgmentMultiparty ArbitrationBilateral ArbitrationFederal Arbitration ActJurisdictional DisputeContract Interpretation
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Haight v. THE WACKENHUT CORP.

Plaintiffs, a group of security officers led by Scott Haight, filed a lawsuit against Wackenhut Corporation alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act for uncompensated preliminary and postliminary work activities. The disputed activities included tasks like donning/doffing protective gear, badging into secure areas, and collecting equipment before and after their shifts at the Indian Point Nuclear Facility. The defendant moved for partial summary judgment, arguing these activities were not compensable under FLSA as per established Second Circuit precedent. The Court granted the defendant's motion, concluding that the contested activities were not "integral" to the security officers' principal job duties and some were de minimis. Consequently, the claims related to these specific preliminary and postliminary activities were dismissed by the court.

FLSAFair Labor Standards ActPortal-to-Portal ActCompensable TimePreliminary ActivitiesPostliminary ActivitiesSummary JudgmentSecurity OfficersWackenhut CorporationIndian Point Nuclear Facility
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 22, 1957

Douds ex rel. National Labor Relations Board v. Knitgoods Workers' Union Local No. 155

The Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board filed a petition for injunctive relief against Knitgoods Workers Union Local 155, International Ladies' Garment Workers Union A. F. of L., alleging unfair labor practices under Section 8(b)(4)(C) of the National Labor Relations Act. The charges arose from the union's picketing of Packard Knitwear, Inc., after Novelty Knitwear Workers Union, Independent, had been certified as the exclusive bargaining representative. The petitioner contended the picketing aimed to compel Packard to recognize the respondent. However, the court found no evidence of activities beyond peaceful picketing since the certification, nor any unlawful inducement of employees to strike or refuse work. Citing precedents, the court affirmed that not all post-certification picketing is forbidden if peaceful. Consequently, the motion for a preliminary injunction was denied.

Labor LawNational Labor Relations ActUnfair Labor PracticesPicketingInjunctive ReliefPreliminary InjunctionLabor OrganizationCollective BargainingUnion CertificationSection 8(b)(4)(C)
References
2
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 00701
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2023

Matter of Iwuchukwu (Active Transp. Servs.--Commissioner of Labor)

The case involves an appeal by Active Transport Services (ATS) from decisions of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Board ruled that Godwin Iwuchukwu, a delivery driver for ATS, was an employee and eligible for unemployment insurance benefits, and that ATS was liable for contributions. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed these decisions, finding substantial evidence supported the Board's determination of an employment relationship, based on ATS's control over drivers, and that Iwuchukwu had not voluntarily left employment without good cause, as he cited a lack of work.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployment RelationshipIndependent ContractorDelivery DriverLogistics BrokerSubstantial EvidenceUnemployment Benefits EligibilityVoluntary Leaving EmploymentDisqualifying MisconductAppellate Review
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Abbo-Bradley v. City of Niagara Falls

Three families residing near the Love Canal Landfill initiated an action in New York State Supreme Court, Niagara County, seeking damages and equitable relief for personal injuries and property damage caused by alleged releases of toxic chemicals. The case was subsequently removed to federal court under original federal jurisdiction pursuant to CERCLA. Defendant Glenn Springs Holdings, Inc. (GSH) filed a motion for preliminary injunctive relief to establish a discovery protocol, requesting prior notice, contemporaneous access, and the opportunity for split samples during plaintiffs' environmental sampling activities. Plaintiffs opposed the motion, citing jurisdictional concerns, work product, and attorney-client privileges. The court, asserting its authority to maintain the status quo pending a remand decision, rejected the privilege claims and found that spoliation concerns warranted the injunction. Consequently, the court granted GSH's motion, enjoining plaintiffs from further environmental sampling without providing 96-hour written notice, contemporaneous access, and the opportunity for all parties to take split samples.

Environmental LitigationCERCLAPreliminary InjunctionDiscovery ProtocolSpoliation of EvidenceWork Product DoctrineAttorney-Client PrivilegeLove CanalToxic WasteHazardous Materials
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 27, 1969

Heldman v. Douglas

The Supreme Court, Queens County, initially granted a preliminary injunction against defendants Douglas and Stingo in an action for an injunction and money damages. The preliminary injunction was based on a non-compete covenant in a distributor's agreement between Heldman Catering Co., Inc. and the defendants. However, the appellate court reversed this order, denying the motion for a preliminary injunction. The court found the preliminary injunction improvidently granted because the covenant was unenforceable due to Heldman Catering Co., Inc. discontinuing business, there was substantial doubt regarding the agreement's authenticity, and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the defendants' conduct was enjoinable, as the business knowledge utilized was publicly available.

InjunctionNon-compete clausePreliminary injunctionDistributor agreementContract lawAbuse of discretionCovenant not to competeBusiness discontinuationEnjoinable conductTrade secrets
References
2
Case No. 2016-1618 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 2019

Active Care Med. Supply Corp. v. American Tr. Ins. Co.

This case concerns an appeal by Active Care Medical Supply Corp. against American Transit Ins. Co. regarding first-party no-fault benefits. The plaintiff, an assignee of Luciano Ernesto, sought summary judgment, while the defendant cross-moved to either dismiss the complaint or hold the action in abeyance. The defendant argued that Luciano Ernesto might be eligible for workers' compensation benefits, thus requiring a determination from the Workers' Compensation Board. The Civil Court granted the defendant's cross-motion to hold the action in abeyance. The Appellate Term affirmed this decision, reiterating that the Workers' Compensation Board has primary jurisdiction over the applicability of the Workers' Compensation Law and that courts should defer to the Board's determination.

No-Fault BenefitsWorkers' Compensation LawPrimary JurisdictionAbeyanceAppellate TermSummary JudgmentEligibility DisputeFirst-Party BenefitsInsurance CoverageAssignor-Assignee
References
9
Case No. ADJ6655023
Regular
Jan 16, 2014

MARIA DIAZ vs. ACTIVE WINDOW PRODUCTS, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST/EXPLORER

This case involves a lien claim by Safety Works, Inc. that was dismissed by the workers' compensation judge for failure to pay a lien activation fee. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration due to a federal court preliminary injunction that enjoined the enforcement of these fee provisions. Consequently, the Board rescinded the dismissal order and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings.

Lien activation feeRescinded orderReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardSafety WorksInc.Preliminary injunctionAngelotti Chiropractic v. BakerSection 4903.06WCJ
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Airlines, Inc. v. Transport Workers Union

American Airlines sought a preliminary injunction against the Transport Workers Union of America (TWU), its officers, and members, to prevent a threatened strike. The dispute stemmed from a proposed merger between American Airlines and Eastern Air Lines, which the TWU vigorously opposed, demanding absolute guarantees for job security and seniority for its 34,000 employees. The union issued public telegrams threatening a strike and scheduled a meeting to set an effective strike date. The court determined that the union's failure to utilize the dispute resolution machinery provided by the Railway Labor Act, before threatening a strike, constituted a basis for injunction. Concluding that such a strike would cause irreparable damage to American Airlines and significantly impact national transportation and defense, the court granted the preliminary injunction.

StrikePreliminary InjunctionMergerAirline IndustryLabor DisputeRailway Labor ActJob SecuritySeniorityUnion ProtestCollective Bargaining
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pavilion Nursing Home v. Litto

The case concerns a motion for a preliminary injunction filed by a proprietary nursing home against a defendant union and John Litto. The plaintiff sought to enjoin the defendants from picketing, interfering with business, and coercing recognition, following the union's call for a recognitional strike. While a petition for an election was pending with the State Labor Relations Board (NYSLRB), and the NLRB had declined jurisdiction, the union initiated a strike solely to compel recognition, which the court deemed illegal. Citing various precedents, the court granted the preliminary injunction, emphasizing that the union must adhere to established legal procedures through the NYSLRB. The injunction was conditional, set to terminate by September 15, 1965, or sooner if the union won an election.

Labor LawPreliminary InjunctionRecognitional StrikeUnion RecognitionState Labor Relations BoardNational Labor Relations BoardPicket LineCollective Bargaining AgentUnfair Labor PracticeJudicial Precedent
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 2,260 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