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. M2003-00629-COA-R3-JV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 15, 2004

Linda C. Gorrell v. Tyree B. Harris, IV

This is a child support modification appeal where Linda C. Gorrell sought to modify a settlement agreement with Tyree B. Harris, IV. The Court of Appeals affirmed that the private agreement was void as against public policy, modifying the trial court's decision. It ruled that child support, both prospective and retroactive, must conform to Tennessee Child Support Guidelines, reversing the trial court on retroactive support calculation. The court also mandated an upward deviation for prospective support due to the father's lack of visitation, despite the mother's antagonistic conduct, but denied retroactive upward deviation. The case was remanded for recalculation and determination of attorney fees.

Child SupportModificationPaternitySettlement AgreementVoid ContractPublic PolicyTennessee Child Support GuidelinesRetroactive SupportProspective SupportUpward Deviation
References
29
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 01469
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 28, 2019

Guthorn v. Village of Saranac Lake

In this appeal, Robert Guthorn, an injured project manager, and his wife sued the Village of Saranac Lake alleging Labor Law violations. The Village, acting as a third-party plaintiff, sought contractual indemnification from Kilby & Gannon Construction Services, LLC, Guthorn's employer and a subcontractor. The core legal dispute revolved around the retroactive enforceability of an indemnification clause within a subcontractor agreement (AIA agreement) that was executed by Kilby & Gannon after Guthorn's accident but was backdated to an earlier date. Supreme Court denied the Village's cross-motion for summary judgment, citing a question of fact regarding whether the parties intended the agreement to apply retroactively. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed this decision, concluding that material issues of fact precluded summary judgment on the contractual indemnification claim.

Contractual IndemnificationRetroactive AgreementSummary JudgmentLabor Law ViolationsSubcontractor AgreementThird-Party ActionConstruction AccidentAppellate ReviewQuestion of FactIndemnification Clause
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. New York City Board of Education

This Memorandum & Order addresses a dispute arising from a settlement agreement between the United States and the New York City Board of Education. The agreement aimed to remedy employment discrimination, specifically testing and recruiting discrimination, against minority provisional hires by granting permanent appointments and retroactive seniority. The Court, having previously found sufficient evidence only for testing discrimination, focuses on two key issues: the intended categorization of beneficiaries and the "actual victim" status of certain individuals. The Court concludes that the parties intended to categorize beneficiaries, and relief for layoff protection purposes is limited to actual victims of testing discrimination. Specifically, Ricardo Cordero and Vernon Marshall are deemed actual victims, with Marshall's seniority date adjusted, while six other individuals failed to prove actual victim status for layoff protection. Consequently, certain black and Hispanic custodial employees who had not taken and failed a challenged exam are not entitled to retroactive seniority for any purpose under the Agreement.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIIFourteenth AmendmentRetroactive SeniorityAffirmative ActionTesting DiscriminationRecruiting DiscriminationActual VictimsSettlement AgreementProvisional Hires
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Southern Electronics Co., Inc.

The debtor, Southern Electronics Company, Inc., filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and proposed to reject its collective bargaining agreement with the Communications Workers of America (CWA). The debtor argued that the seniority provisions of the agreement protected unproductive employees, contributing to financial losses. The court reviewed legal standards for rejecting such agreements, opting for a 'balancing of the equities' test. Despite concerns about the debtor's intransigence and lack of documentation for employee unproductivity, the court found the agreement burdensome due to potential arbitration costs and critical need for reorganization funds contingent on rejection. Ultimately, the court permitted the rejection of the agreement and confirmed the debtor's plan of reorganization, prioritizing the continuation of the business and the interests of current employees and unsecured creditors over the perpetuation of the collective bargaining agreement.

BankruptcyChapter 11Collective Bargaining AgreementContract RejectionLabor LawDebtor in PossessionSeniority ClauseUnfair Labor PracticeReorganization PlanEquities Balancing Test
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Arbitration between Arthur Murray, Inc. & Ricciardi

Justice Froessel dissents, advocating for the modification of the lower court's order. The petitioner seeks to stay arbitration concerning a dispute stemming from nine identical franchise agreements. Justice Froessel argues that the clear language of these agreements, coupled with the absence of a clause preventing unreasonable withholding of consent and the specific nature of the agreements, grants the petitioner the right to refuse consent to their assignment, citing several cases including Allhusen v. Caristo Constr. Corp. The dissenting opinion also asserts that the rule of good faith does not apply in this context. Consequently, it is argued that the portion of the dispute related to damages from the arbitrary withholding of consent to assignments is not arbitrable. Therefore, the orders of the court below should be modified to grant the petitioner's application to stay arbitration regarding the damages claim arising from the refusal to consent to the assignment of franchise agreements; otherwise, affirmed.

arbitration stayfranchise agreementsassignment of contractsconsent withholdingcontract interpretationgood faith rulenon-arbitrable claimsappellate reviewdissenting opinioncontractual rights
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 19, 2002

Claim of Estate of Lutz v. Lakeside Beikirk Nursing Home

The case involves an appeal by a claimant from two Workers' Compensation Board decisions concerning a waiver agreement. The decedent, Beverly Lutz, her employer, and carrier had a proposed settlement agreement that was filed but not yet approved when she died. The Board, through Commissioner Tremiti, refused to honor the agreement after the carrier and Special Funds withdrew their consent. Although an approval notice was mistakenly issued, the Board later corrected it, ruling the agreement was never approved. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, holding that the Board had continuing jurisdiction to correct its error and that the withdrawal of consent by the carrier and Special Funds justified the disapproval of the agreement.

Workers' CompensationSettlement AgreementWaiver AgreementDeath BenefitsBoard ReviewJurisdictionConsent WithdrawalStatutory InterpretationRegulation ValidityAppellate Review
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 31, 2013

Gottlieb v. Gottlieb

This dissenting opinion addresses an appeal and cross-appeal concerning the enforceability of a prenuptial agreement between a wealthy plaintiff (husband) and a defendant (wife). The defendant challenged the agreement, alleging overreaching and manifest unfairness during negotiations, while the plaintiff sought its enforcement. Although the motion court granted a trial on the maintenance waiver, it dismissed other counterclaims. Justice Feinman's dissent argues that summary judgment should be denied for all counterclaims, emphasizing the need for a full trial to assess the credibility of the parties and resolve material factual disputes regarding the plaintiff's conduct during negotiations and the agreement's potentially unfair terms, particularly highlighting the distinct legal standard of 'manifest unfairness' in marital agreements.

prenuptial agreementmarital agreementsummary judgmentunconscionabilitymanifest unfairnessoverreachingfiduciary dutyequitable distributionspousal maintenance waiverproperty distribution
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 01, 2006

In Re Northwest Airlines Corp.

Northwest Airlines Corporation and its affiliates (Debtors) filed a motion under § 1113 of the Bankruptcy Code to reject a collective bargaining agreement with the Professional Flight Attendants Association (PFAA) after PFAA's membership failed to ratify a negotiated agreement. The Bankruptcy Court, presided over by Judge Allan L. Gropper, found that the rejection was necessary for the Debtors' reorganization. The court also determined that PFAA rejected the Debtors' proposal without good cause and that the balance of equities clearly favored rejection. Consequently, the court authorized the Debtors to reject the agreement and implement new terms, specifically those of the March 1 Agreement, with a fourteen-day stay to allow for further negotiation. This decision aims to facilitate the airline's financial restructuring and emergence from Chapter 11.

Bankruptcy LawCollective BargainingAirline ReorganizationLabor DisputeSection 1113 MotionUnion NegotiationsFlight AttendantsWage ConcessionsWork Rule ChangesGood Cause Standard
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Civil Service Forum v. New York City Transit Authority

This case involves an appeal concerning the legality of an agreement made by the New York City Transit Authority (Authority) with the Transport Workers Union of America (TWU) and Amalgamated Association (Amalgamated), granting them exclusive collective bargaining rights for hourly paid employees. The Civil Service Forum, a labor union, and its members, employees of the Authority, initiated a declaratory judgment action, arguing that these exclusive rights were unconstitutional and discriminatory. The Special Term initially granted the Authority and TWU's motions to dismiss the complaint. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, finding that the Authority had the power under the Public Authorities Law to enter into such agreements. The court clarified that the agreement, while granting exclusive representation in grievance processing, still preserved individual employees' rights to present grievances and did not compel union membership. Ultimately, the court directed a declaratory judgment affirming the validity of the Authority's resolutions, election, agreements, and policy statements.

Labor LawCollective BargainingPublic AuthoritiesDeclaratory JudgmentConstitutional RightsDue ProcessEqual ProtectionGrievance ProceduresExclusive RepresentationTransit Authority
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Luna

Johnny Luna, an at-will employee, was terminated by Poly-America after filing a worker's compensation claim and subsequently sued for wrongful discharge and retaliation under the Texas Labor Code. Poly-America sought to compel arbitration based on an agreement Luna had signed. Luna challenged the arbitration agreement's substantive unconscionability, specifically pointing to provisions on fee-splitting, limited remedies (prohibiting punitive damages and reinstatement), limited discovery, and the inability to apply a 'good cause' standard. The court determined that while individual provisions might not be unconscionable, the cumulative effect of the high arbitration costs and the significant limitations on statutory remedies rendered the agreement as a whole substantively unconscionable. The court also rejected Poly-America's argument for severability, concluding the problematic provisions were integral to the agreement. As a result, the court conditionally granted Luna's petition for writ of mandamus, instructing the trial court to withdraw its order compelling arbitration.

Arbitration AgreementSubstantive UnconscionabilityMandamus ReliefEmployment LawWorker's Compensation ActWrongful DischargeRetaliation ClaimFee-Splitting ProvisionRemedy LimitationDiscovery Limitation
References
36
Showing 1-10 of 3,808 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