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

Jones v. Harris

Plaintiff Robert Jones, an incarcerated individual at Sing Sing, initiated this action alleging his cell was searched multiple times in retaliation for exercising First Amendment rights and in violation of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, along with various property deprivations. Defendants, including correctional officers Harris and Allen, and Superintendent Marshall, moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and to state a claim. The court granted dismissal of plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims related to cell searches and alleged sexual harassment, as well as First Amendment retaliation claims concerning cell searches, property destruction, and false misconduct reports, citing insufficient factual allegations or failure to meet constitutional thresholds. However, the court denied dismissal of plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment due process claim regarding the deprivation of three specific items of property against defendants Allen and Marshall, requesting further legal briefing on questions concerning the exhaustion of administrative remedies and access to post-deprivation procedures. Motions filed by the plaintiff for summary judgment and in limine were denied; the former as futile due to lack of exhaustion or constitutional violation, and the latter as premature.

Prisoner RightsFirst AmendmentEighth AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentDue ProcessRetaliationCell SearchProperty DeprivationQualified ImmunityAdministrative Remedies
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Greater Blouse, Skirt & Neckwear Contractors' Ass'n

This case involves multiple defendants, including associations, a labor union, and individuals, charged with criminal antitrust violations under sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act in the ladies' blouse industry across four states. The opinion addresses various motions filed by the defendants. Defendant Strasser's motion to dismiss the indictment, based on claims of insufficient allegations regarding public injury, vagueness, and duplicity, was denied. All defendants' motions for severance, arguing prejudice due to defendant Strasser's alleged unsavory connections, were also denied. Motions for discovery under Rule 16 were largely granted to allow defendants to inspect documents obtained by the Government through seizure or process, while broad 'dragnet' requests under Rule 17(c) were denied. Finally, motions for bills of particulars were partially granted to provide essential information for defense preparation and partially denied to prevent premature disclosure of the Government's evidence, and a motion for leave to make further motions was denied.

Antitrust LawSherman ActConspiracyMonopolizationGroup BoycottCriminal ProcedureDiscovery RulesBills of ParticularsSeverance MotionIndictment Dismissal
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Von Maack v. Wyckoff Heights Medical Center

This document addresses a procedural matter where a motion for reargument of a previous motion for leave to appeal was considered by the court. The outcome of this specific motion was a denial. Notably, Judge Feinman indicated that he took no part in the decision-making process for this particular motion. The text also references a prior related case decided in 2017.

ReargumentLeave to AppealMotion DeniedAppellate ProcedureRecusal
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 19, 2011

Nenadovic v. P.T. Tenants Corp.

Plaintiff Stanimir Nenadovic, an employee of A-Tech, was injured when a 50-foot suspended scaffold, shared by three workers despite a two-person capacity, broke. The Supreme Court, New York County, initially denied Liro's motion to renew and ET. Tenants Corp.'s motion to renew, while granting Nenadovic partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against Liberty Architectural Products Co., Inc. On appeal, all these orders were unanimously affirmed. Furthermore, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment motions by ET. Tenants Corp. and Prudential & Douglas Elliman regarding contractual indemnification, common-law indemnification, breach of contract claims against Liro, Liberty, and A-Tech, and dismissal of Nenadovic's Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) and common-law negligence claims against them. The appellate court found plaintiff demonstrated prima facie entitlement to summary judgment under Labor Law § 240 (1), holding Liberty as a statutory agent, and upheld the denial of indemnification and dismissal motions due to remaining issues of negligence and prematurity.

Scaffold collapseLabor Law § 240(1) claimSummary judgmentContractual indemnificationCommon-law indemnificationBreach of contractStatutory agentPersonal injuryConstruction accidentWorker safety
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pom Wonderful LLC v. Organic Juice USA, Inc.

Plaintiff POM Wonderful LLC ("Pom") and defendant Organic Juice, Inc. ("Organic Juice") are competing purveyors of bottled pomegranate juice involved in a dispute over false advertising and deceptive marketing practices. Pom initiated the lawsuit, alleging Organic Juice violated federal and state laws by selling "adulterated" juice falsely labeled as "100% pure." Organic Juice counterclaimed, accusing Pom of deceptively marketing its juice made from concentrate and making unsubstantiated health claims, even adding elderberry juice concentrate from 2002 to 2008. The court considered three motions: Pom's motion for summary judgment on Organic Juice's counterclaims, Organic Juice's motion for partial summary judgment on the same, and Pom's motion to dismiss Organic Juice's amended counterclaims. The court denied all three motions, finding that despite alleged methodological flaws, consumer surveys demonstrating potential confusion regarding Pom's advertisements were admissible. Furthermore, the court ordered Pom to pay Organic Juice's costs and attorney's fees related to the motion to dismiss, deeming that particular motion frivolous.

False AdvertisingLanham ActSummary JudgmentConsumer ConfusionSurvey EvidenceBrand MarketingJuice LabelingConcentrateElderberryHealth Claims
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 13, 2009

Beach v. Healthways, Inc.

This order addresses a motion to intervene by the Central Laborers’ Pension Fund (CLPF) and the defendants’ motion to stay discovery. Magistrate Judge Juliet Griffin denied the defendants' motion to stay, reasoning that despite potential unnecessary discovery, the existing discovery timelines did not permit bifurcation or phasing of discovery. The court granted CLPF’s motion to intervene as a named plaintiff, finding it met all requirements under Rule 24(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Key factors for intervention included timeliness, a substantial economic interest in the litigation, the potential impairment of CLPF's interest without intervention, and the inadequacy of representation by existing individual plaintiffs for a class of institutional investors. The order also noted that parties resolved proposed modifications to the discovery plan.

Securities LitigationClass ActionMotion to InterveneMotion to Stay DiscoveryFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2)Private Securities Litigation Reform ActInstitutional InvestorPension FundAdequacy of RepresentationTimeliness of Motion
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Francis v. Jewelry Box Corp. of America

This document concerns a motion for reargument of a motion for leave to appeal. The motion was denied. The decision references an earlier case cited as 26 NY3d 981 from 2015. It is noted that Chief Judge DiFiore and Judge Garcia did not participate in this ruling.

Motion for ReargumentLeave to AppealDenied MotionAppellate ProcedureJudicial Review
References
1
Case No. 03-03-00768-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 08, 2005

Pearl Witkowski and Joseph Phillips, Individually and on Behalf of a Class of All Others Similarly Situated And Deanna Warner, Individually and on Be Behalf of a Class of All Others Similarly Situated v. Brian, Fooshee and Yonge Properties, a Texas General Partnership George Yonge Jefferson Fooshee, Patrick Brian And Embrey Partners, Ltd, a Texas Limited Partnership

The case involves former low-income tenants of the River Woods apartment complex who sued the property owners (BFY) and proposed purchaser (Embrey) after being evicted. The tenants alleged misrepresentation to government agencies (TDHCA and FDIC) to prematurely release low-income housing restrictions (LURA), leading to their eviction. The district court granted summary judgment for the appellees and denied the appellants' motion for leave to amend their petition. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that the appellants lacked standing as third-party beneficiaries to enforce the term provisions of the federal statute (AHDP) or the LURA. It also upheld the denial of the motion to amend due to the late stage of proceedings and the appellants' prior knowledge of the facts.

Low-income housingHousing restrictionsClass action lawsuitSummary judgmentStanding to sueThird-party beneficiaryMisrepresentation claimsAmendment of pleadingsAppellate court decisionProperty sale dispute
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 21, 2005

Hughes v. Tishman Construction Corp.

Plaintiff James Hughes, a concrete laborer, was injured on April 10, 2001, while working on a construction project when a concrete hose clogged and, upon premature disassembly, whipped around, striking him and another worker. Hughes and his wife sued the construction manager Tishman Westside Construction and concrete pumping service A & B Preferred Concrete Pumping Service, alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law § 200. Tishman moved for summary judgment, arguing it did not control the work's means and methods. A & B cross-moved, claiming it only leased the truck and did not employ the operator. The Supreme Court initially denied both motions in part. On appeal, the higher court modified the order, granting Tishman's motion for summary judgment regarding common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims, dismissing those causes of action against Tishman, but otherwise affirmed the denial of A & B's cross-motion, citing triable issues of fact concerning the concrete pump operator's identity and employment relationship. The dissenting opinion argued for affirming the original order in its entirety against both defendants, asserting that sufficient evidence existed to raise a question of fact regarding Tishman's supervision and control over the work.

Construction accidentLabor LawCommon-law negligenceSummary judgmentSupervisory controlMeans and methodsSubcontractor liabilityGeneral contractor liabilityConcrete pumpPersonal injury
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Clark v. New York City Transit Authority

The motion seeking leave to appeal from the Appellate Division order denying appellant’s motion to vacate and the Appellate Division order denying appellant’s motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals was dismissed. The dismissal was based on the ground that the said orders do not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution. The motion for leave to appeal was otherwise denied.

Leave to appealAppellate DivisionMotion to vacateCourt of AppealsDismissedFinal determinationConstitutional interpretationMotion denied
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 13,799 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