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. 06-19-00063-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 05, 2020

Reverse Mortgage Funding, LLC v. Carla Nagle Blevins Robertson

Reverse Mortgage Funding, LLC (RMF) appealed a default judgment entered against it after failing to timely answer a lawsuit filed by Carla Nagle Blevins Robertson. Robertson sought to quiet title, asserting that Katie Nagle, who entered a reverse mortgage with RMF's predecessor, only possessed a life estate that terminated upon her death, rendering the mortgage void. RMF moved for a new trial, claiming a meritorious defense as a bona fide mortgagee without actual or constructive notice of Robertson's claim. The Court of Appeals initially affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding RMF failed to factually support its claims of lacking notice. Subsequently, the parties settled, leading to the appeal's dismissal, though the court denied the request to withdraw its earlier opinion, citing its public importance.

Default JudgmentMeritorious DefenseBona Fide MortgageeQuiet Title ActionLife EstateReverse MortgageActual NoticeConstructive NoticeAppellate ProcedureMotion for New Trial
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McDonald v. City of New York

The plaintiff sustained personal injuries while working on a dry dock at the Brooklyn Navy Yard. The Supreme Court initially denied the defendants' motions for summary judgment, asserting the case did not fall under admiralty jurisdiction. On appeal, the higher court reversed this finding, concluding that a maritime nexus and situs existed, thus invoking substantive maritime law. This preemption by federal maritime law rendered the strict liability provisions of New York Labor Law §§ 240 and 241 inapplicable. Consequently, the appellate court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss claims based on these labor laws, while affirming the denial of dismissal for claims under common law negligence and Labor Law § 200.

Admiralty JurisdictionMaritime LawLabor LawPreemptionPersonal InjuryDry DockSummary JudgmentAppellate CourtNew YorkNegligence
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 20, 1992

Angelo v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad

A Metro-North policeman, after being dismissed from his job for alleged theft and later reinstated with back pay by the National Railroad Adjustment Board, initiated a malicious prosecution lawsuit. The defendants sought summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff's common law claim was preempted by the Railway Labor Act (RLA). The Supreme Court initially denied the defendants' motion, but the appellate court reversed this decision. The appellate court held that the dispute, arising from the employment relation and disciplinary proceedings under a collective bargaining agreement, constituted a 'minor dispute' under the RLA, falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Act's arbitration procedures. The court found the plaintiff's allegations of misconduct insufficient to bypass RLA preemption, concluding that the common law claim for malicious prosecution must be dismissed.

Railway Labor ActRLA preemptionmalicious prosecutionsummary judgmentcollective bargaining agreementminor disputearbitrationdisciplinary proceedingsemployment lawwrongful dismissal
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carlisle v. Philip Morris, Inc.

This appeal addresses whether the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act preempts state common-law tort claims for smoking-related injuries and deaths. Plaintiffs, including individual smokers and widows of deceased smokers, alleged various tort claims like failure to warn, design defects, misrepresentation, and civil conspiracy against cigarette manufacturers. The trial court initially granted summary judgment for the defendants based on preemption. The appellate court reversed, concluding that the Labeling Act does not clearly or unambiguously intend to preempt such common-law claims. The court highlighted the speculative nature of the conflict, the Act's primary goal of public health information, the lack of alternative remedies, and legislative history.

PreemptionFederal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising ActCommon-Law TortSmoking InjuriesProduct LiabilityFailure to WarnDesign DefectsMisrepresentationCivil ConspiracyState Law
References
83
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sabine Consolidated, Inc. v. State

This case addresses whether the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) preempts state criminal prosecution for criminally negligent homicide. Appellants Tantillo and Sabine Consolidated, Inc. were convicted in Texas after two employees died in a trench collapse, but the Court of Appeals reversed, citing OSHA preemption. This court examined express, implied, and conflict preemption doctrines. It concluded that OSHA does not preempt state criminal laws, as the federal act primarily aims to prevent workplace hazards, while state criminal statutes punish unlawful acts. The court reversed the Court of Appeals' judgment and remanded the case for consideration of remaining points of error.

OSHA preemptioncriminal negligent homicideworkplace safetystate criminal lawfederal preemptiontrench collapseemployee deathTexas Penal CodeOccupational Safety and Health ActSupremacy Clause
References
20
Case No. 10 NY3d 703 [2008]
Regular Panel Decision

Helmsley-Spear, Inc. v. Fishman

This case addresses whether a private nuisance claim stemming from loud drumming during union leafleting is preempted by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Plaintiffs, including the managing agent of the Empire State Building and nearby businesses, sought an injunction against the Union's drumming activities. While the NLRB had previously found the drumming insufficient to transform protected leafleting into unlawful conduct, the Supreme Court granted a preliminary injunction. The Appellate Division reversed, citing federal preemption. This Court reversed the Appellate Division, ruling that neither Garmon nor Machinists preemption applies. The Court emphasized that the state's interest in regulating local conduct like private nuisance outweighs potential interference with federal labor law, and loud drumming is not considered an "economic weapon" protected by the NLRA. The case was remitted for further consideration.

Private NuisanceNLRA PreemptionLabor DisputesUnion ProtestsFree SpeechState Court JurisdictionFederal Law SupremacyGarmon DoctrineMachinists DoctrineInjunctive Relief
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of Austin v. Paxton

The City of Austin sued the State of Texas (Attorney General Ken Paxton and Texas Workforce Commission) to enjoin Texas Local Government Code § 250.007(c). This state law allows landlords to refuse tenants using federal housing vouchers, which the City argues is preempted by federal law due to its ordinance prohibiting such discrimination. The State filed a motion to dismiss, citing lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The Court denied the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, affirming the City's standing and ruling the suit not barred by the Eleventh Amendment. However, the Court granted dismissal for the City's conflict preemption and Section 3617 express preemption claims, but denied dismissal for the Section 3615 express preemption claim, concluding the City adequately pleaded a disparate impact claim.

PreemptionFederal Housing Choice Voucher ProgramTexas Local Government CodeFair Housing ActEleventh AmendmentStandingMotion to DismissDisparate ImpactCity OrdinanceState Law
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Comfort

The defendant, convicted in 1982 of murder, attempted murder, and drug charges, had some of his murder convictions later reversed on appeal. He subsequently filed multiple CPL article 440 motions to set aside his sentence, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel due to a conflict of interest and a failure to pursue defenses, and arguing that he was incompetent to stand trial. The court denied his motions to vacate the judgment, finding no sufficient evidence of incompetency and that prior arguments regarding counsel were procedurally barred or refuted by court records. However, the appellate court reversed the portion of the order that resentenced the defendant, noting he was resentenced in his absence and the People conceded the need for resentencing. The case was remitted to the Steuben County Court for resentencing, with discretion to order an updated presentence investigation report.

ResentencingCriminal Procedure LawIneffective Assistance of CounselCompetency to Stand TrialConflict of InterestAppellate ReviewDrug ChargesMurderAttempted MurderPrior Convictions
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 15, 1994

Avalanche Wrecking Corp. v. New York State Insurance Fund

National Union Fire Insurance Company and Avalanche Wrecking Corp. initiated a declaratory judgment action against the New York State Insurance Fund, seeking reimbursement for defense costs and damages. This stemmed from Avalanche employees' injuries, leading to lawsuits against Republic National Bank of New York (an additional insured under National Union's policy) and third-party claims against Avalanche. National Union, having defended both Republic and Avalanche, sought to recover from State Fund, Avalanche's workers' compensation carrier. The IAS Court initially denied State Fund's motion for summary judgment, but the appellate court reversed this decision, granting summary judgment to State Fund. The reversal was based on the anti-subrogation rule, which precludes an insurer from pursuing a subrogated claim against its own insured, citing a potential conflict of interest from representing multiple parties under the same risk.

Insurance DisputeSubrogationAnti-Subrogation RuleSummary JudgmentDeclaratory Judgment ActionWorkers' CompensationEmployer LiabilityAdditional InsuredContractual ObligationIndemnification
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Madigan v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

Plaintiff Arthur J. Madigan sustained injuries after falling from a reinforcing rod cage while working on a UPS delivery facility construction, leading him to file a Labor Law § 240 claim. The Supreme Court initially denied his motion for partial summary judgment and granted the defendants' cross-motion to dismiss the claim. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, finding that the plaintiff's work involved a significant elevation-related risk, thereby making Labor Law § 240 applicable. The court also dismissed the defendants' arguments regarding the unwitnessed nature of the accident, the availability of safety devices, and instructions not to walk on the cages. Furthermore, it established that UPS, as the overseeing entity and parent company of Newbany, was liable under the statute. Consequently, the appellate court unanimously reversed the lower court's order, granted the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment, and denied the defendants' cross-motion.

Construction AccidentLabor LawFall from HeightSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewEmployer LiabilitySafety DevicesElevation-Related RiskWorker InjuryNew York Law
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 9,308 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