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
May 12, 2010

Mattina v. Ardsley Bus Corp.

This case involves Celeste J. Mattina, Regional Director for Region 2 of the National Labor Relations Board, seeking temporary injunctive relief against Ardsley Bus Corp. under Section 10(j) of the NLRA. The General Counsel alleged that Ardsley engaged in unfair labor practices, including unlawfully withdrawing recognition from the Transport Workers Union and making unilateral changes to employment terms. The court reviewed the administrative record, found reasonable cause to believe Ardsley committed these unfair labor practices, and determined that temporary injunctive relief is just and proper to prevent irreparable harm and restore the status quo. The injunction requires Ardsley to cease various unfair labor practices and to bargain in good faith with the Union.

Temporary InjunctionUnfair Labor PracticesNational Labor Relations ActCollective Bargaining AgreementUnion DecertificationRefusal to BargainUnilateral ChangesEmployee RightsStatus Quo AnteInjunctive Relief
References
22
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

Fernbach v. 3815 9th Avenue Meat & Produce Corp.

The Regional Director for Region 2 of the National Labor Relations Board petitioned the court for injunctive relief under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act. The petition sought an interim order to halt alleged unlawful labor practices and mandate the reinstatement of five employees discharged on October 22, 2011, amid union organizing efforts. The court found reasonable cause to believe the employer violated the Act, noting the close temporal proximity between the employer learning of union activity and the discharges, and the pretextual nature of the employer's cost-saving justification. It also determined that injunctive relief, including a cease and desist order and employee reinstatement, was just and proper to restore the status quo and mitigate the chilling effect on unionization caused by the discharges. Consequently, the court granted the petition for injunctive relief.

National Labor Relations ActNLRBSection 10(j)Injunctive ReliefUnfair Labor PracticeEmployee DischargeUnion OrganizingReinstatementCease and DesistLabor Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pastrana v. Folding Box, Corrugated Box & Display Workers Local 381

The plaintiffs, employees of Star Corrugated Box Co., Inc. and members of Local 381, sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the enforcement of a collective bargaining agreement between Local 381 and Star. They alleged that union officers executed the agreement despite employee rejection, violating their duty of fair representation under the National Labor Relations Act. The court found no evidence of discrimination, distinguishing the cited precedents. Furthermore, it was noted that Local 381, as the statutory bargaining representative, had the right to enter the agreement. The plaintiffs' delay in seeking relief, coupled with the National Labor Relations Board's dismissal of related unfair labor practice charges against the employer (thus validating the contract), led the court to deny the motion for preliminary injunction. The court emphasized that granting the injunction would disrupt economic interests and that plaintiffs failed to show a clear right to relief.

Preliminary InjunctionCollective Bargaining AgreementNational Labor Relations ActDuty of Fair RepresentationLachesUnfair Labor PracticesUnion Contract RejectionFederal CourtLabor LawInjunctive Relief
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 21, 1997

Capers v. Giuliani

Plaintiffs, public-assistance recipients in New York City's Work Experience Program (WEP), alleged unsafe working conditions in their sanitation-related assignments, claiming violations of OSHA standards and inadequate provision of protective gear, facilities, and training. They also contended that regular City employees received more favorable treatment and a better grievance procedure. The Supreme Court initially granted plaintiffs' motion for injunctive relief and class certification, while denying defendants' cross-motion to dismiss. However, the Appellate Division reversed this decision, dismissing the complaint on procedural grounds due to the plaintiffs' failure to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the Public Employee Safety and Health Act (Labor Law § 27-a) and the Social Services Law. The court emphasized that administrative agencies have exclusive original jurisdiction over such matters, and judicial review is only permissible after administrative channels have been exhausted. The preliminary injunction was also found to be improperly granted due to a lack of factual findings.

Work Experience Program (WEP)Public Employee Safety and Health ActExhaustion of Administrative RemediesInjunctive ReliefClass CertificationOccupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)Labor LawSocial Services LawAppellate ReviewJudicial Review Limitations
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brukhman v. Giuliani

This case addresses a dispute between welfare recipients participating in New York City's Work Experience Program (WEP) and City and State social services departments. Plaintiffs, recipients of Home Relief (HR) and Aid to Families with Dependent Children (ADC), claimed they were not receiving fair economic credit for work performed, as their hours were calculated using the Federal minimum wage instead of comparable wages for similar work. They sought class certification and a preliminary injunction. The court granted class certification and intervention for proposed plaintiffs-intervenors. It also denied the defendants' cross-motions to dismiss, ruling that administrative remedies would be futile. Ultimately, the court granted a preliminary injunction, mandating that the City defendants prospectively calculate WEP participants' hours based on the higher of the State/Federal minimum wage or the rate for comparable work by regular employees, citing Social Services Law and the New York State Constitution.

Work Experience Program (WEP)Welfare ReformPublic AssistanceHome Relief (HR)Aid to Families with Dependent Children (ADC)Class ActionPreliminary InjunctionWage ComparabilityMinimum Wage LawSocial Services Legislation
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Langham v. State

This case concerns an appeal by teachers, represented by the New York State United Teachers (NYSUT), challenging the denial of retroactive dual family health insurance coverage. The plaintiffs originally lost dual family coverage under a State Health Insurance Plan and subsequently sought the same retroactive benefits granted to members of another union, the New York Educators Association (NYEA), following a separate settlement. Their request was denied, leading them to file an action for declaratory and injunctive relief. Special Term dismissed the complaint as untimely, a decision affirmed on appeal. The appellate court ruled that the four-month limitations period of CPLR 217 governed the declaratory judgment action and began on January 3, 1984, when plaintiffs learned of the unequal treatment, rather than the later date of their specific request's denial.

Declaratory JudgmentInjunctive ReliefCivil Service LawCPLRStatute of LimitationsDual Family CoverageHealth InsuranceState EmployeesCollective BargainingUnequal Treatment
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mitz v. Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners

A group of non-veterinarian equine dental practitioners and horse breeders, collectively 'Appellants,' sought declaratory judgment and injunctive relief against the Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners. They challenged the constitutionality of the Board's regulation of equine dentistry under the Veterinary Licensing Act. The trial court initially granted the Board's plea to the jurisdiction, abating the case due to failure to exhaust administrative remedies and primary agency jurisdiction. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, ruling that the Appellants were not required to exhaust administrative remedies before pursuing their constitutional claims. The court affirmed that the Board lacked exclusive or primary jurisdiction over constitutional challenges and that the case was ripe for judicial review, with the practitioners having established standing.

Constitutional LawAdministrative LawVeterinary Licensing ActEquine DentistryDeclaratory JudgmentInjunctive ReliefExhaustion of RemediesPrimary JurisdictionExclusive JurisdictionRipeness
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Douds Ex Rel. National Labor Relations Board v. Sheet Metal Workers International Ass'n, Local Union No. 28

The Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board filed a petition for a temporary injunction against an unnamed labor organization (the respondent) under Section 10(l) of the NLRA. This action stemmed from a charge by Ferro-Co Corporation, alleging the respondent engaged in unfair labor practices under Section 8(b)(4)(A) by inducing employees of Dierks Heating Co., Inc. to refuse to handle Ferro-Co products. The court examined whether the respondent's actions constituted an illegal secondary boycott, which the legislative history of Section 8(b)(4)(A) aimed to prevent. It found no evidence of a labor dispute between the respondent and Ferro-Co (the 'secondary' employer), concluding the dispute was primarily with Dierks (the 'primary' employer). Since the circumstances did not align with the traditional concept of a secondary boycott, the court determined that equitable relief was not warranted and consequently denied the petition for injunctive relief.

Labor InjunctionSecondary BoycottNLRA Section 8(b)(4)(A)Taft-Hartley ActUnfair Labor PracticeCollective Bargaining AgreementPrimary DisputeNeutral EmployerUnion ConductTemporary Restraining Order
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of El Paso, Mayor Oscar Leeser, City Representatives Emma Acosta, Carl L. Robinson, Michiel R. Noe, Courtney C. Niland, Ann Morgan Lilly, Larry Romero, Claudia Ordaz and Lily Limon v. Waterblasting Technologies, Inc. and Thomas G. Wicker, Jr.

Plaintiffs Waterblasting Technologies, Inc. and Thomas G. Wicker, Jr. sued the City of El Paso, its Mayor, and City Council after the City awarded a bid contract for a water blasting unit to Team Eagle, Inc., instead of to Waterblasting Technologies. Plaintiffs sought a declaration that the contract was void and an injunction preventing its performance, alleging violations of Chapter 252 of the Texas Local Government Code. The City filed a plea to the jurisdiction, asserting governmental immunity and lack of standing, which the trial court denied. On interlocutory appeal, the court concluded that while Section 252.061 waived the City's governmental immunity for injunctions, the contract's full performance rendered the plaintiffs' claims for injunctive and declaratory relief moot. Additionally, Waterblasting Technologies, Inc. lacked standing as a bidder because the contract was for equipment, not 'construction of public works.' Thomas G. Wicker, Jr. had standing as a property tax-paying resident. The court also dismissed ultra vires claims against City Officials, as these only allow prospective relief, and the contract was already performed. Therefore, the appellate court reversed the trial court's order and dismissed all claims against the City, Mayor, and City Council.

Governmental immunitySubject-matter jurisdictionStandingMootnessUltra vires actsBid contractPublic worksTexas Local Government CodeInterlocutory appealDeclaratory judgment
References
70
Showing 1-10 of 2,404 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