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

Keene Corp. v. Williams Bailey & Wesner, L.L.P. (In Re Keene Corp.)

Keene Corporation, in Chapter 11 bankruptcy, filed an adversary proceeding against 27 law firms, alleging they forced Keene into bankruptcy through fraudulent asbestos-related tort claims. The defendant law firms moved to withdraw the reference of this proceeding from the bankruptcy court to the district court, citing complex federal statutes (Antitrust and RICO) and a jury trial right. Defendant Levy Phillips & Konigsberg also appealed an interlocutory order denying its motion to dismiss a civil contempt proceeding. The District Court, presided over by Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy, denied the defendants' motion to withdraw the reference, deeming it premature, and dismissed LPK's interlocutory appeal, affirming the bankruptcy court's ruling on contempt. The court determined the adversary proceeding was non-core and did not warrant mandatory or discretionary withdrawal at this early stage.

Bankruptcy LawAdversary ProceedingWithdrawal of ReferenceInterlocutory AppealCivil ContemptAntitrust LawRICO ActAsbestos LitigationFederal JurisdictionCore vs. Non-Core Proceedings
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re New York City Off-Track Betting Corp.

Finger Lakes Racing Association and Empire Resorts, Inc. moved to compel New York City Off-Track Betting Corporation (OTB) to pay post-petition statutory distributions under the New York Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering and Breeding Law, arguing they were mandated and qualified as administrative expenses. The Court denied administrative expense status, reasoning that no "estate" exists in Chapter 9 cases to incur such expenses. Citing ambiguity in the state's Racing Law, paramount federalism concerns, and the regulatory authority of the New York State Racing and Wagering Board, the Court abstained from ruling on the specific payment schedule for these distributions. Consequently, the automatic stay was lifted, and the parties were ordered to seek a determination from the Racing and Wagering Board and engage in mediation to resolve the ongoing disputes regarding OTB's restructuring and statutory payments.

Bankruptcy CourtChapter 9 DebtorMunicipal LawState RegulationOff-Track BettingHorse Racing IndustryStatutory InterpretationJudicial AbstentionComity and FederalismAdministrative Claims
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Talyansky v. Xerox Corp.

Plaintiff Victoria Talyansky sued Xerox Corporation and J.M. Ishler under Title VII, alleging a hostile work environment and retaliation through termination and negative employment references. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. The court found Talyansky's hostile work environment and retaliatory discharge claims were time-barred due to her failure to file an EEOC charge within the statutory 300 days of the alleged discriminatory conduct. Her claim of continuing retaliation via negative references was also dismissed as too vague and inadequate for EEOC investigation. Consequently, the defendants' motion to dismiss was granted, and the complaint was dismissed with prejudice.

Hostile Work EnvironmentRetaliatory DischargeTitle VII ClaimsEEOC ChargeStatute of LimitationsMotion to DismissEmployment DiscriminationTime-Barred ClaimsNegative Employment ReferencesPro Se Plaintiff
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Romero

Defendant Israel Romero, an attorney from Honduras, was convicted of the unlawful practice of law and petit larceny. The central legal issue was whether the Attorney-General possessed the authority under Judiciary Law § 476-a (1) to initiate criminal prosecution for these offenses. The Court concluded that the term 'action' in the statute refers exclusively to a civil action, not a criminal one, a determination supported by the statutory language and legislative history, particularly sections 476-a and 476-b. The Court reasoned that extending 'action' to criminal prosecution would implausibly grant Bar associations the power to prosecute crimes. Consequently, lacking specific statutory authorization, the Attorney-General was found to be without the authority to criminally prosecute the defendant, leading to the reversal of the Appellate Division's order and the dismissal of the indictment.

Unlawful Practice of LawAttorney-General AuthorityCriminal LawCivil LawStatutory InterpretationJudiciary LawLegislative IntentProsecutorial DiscretionAppellate ProcedureIndictment Dismissal
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sara Lee Corp. v. Bags of New York, Inc.

Sara Lee Corporation filed an action claiming defendants produced and sold counterfeit trademarked Coach Leatherware products, violating the Trademark Act of 1946. Following defendants' failure to respond, a default judgment was entered, and the court retained jurisdiction to determine damages. Despite court orders, seizures, and civil contempt findings, defendant Nabil Helou and his associated businesses persisted in their counterfeiting activities. The court, noting the defendants' willful infringement, efforts to mislead, and defiance of deterrence, awarded Sara Lee $750,000 in statutory damages and $46,045.63 in attorney fees and costs.

Trademark InfringementCounterfeitingStatutory DamagesAttorney FeesWillful InfringementDefault JudgmentInjunctive ReliefDeterrencePunitive DamagesCivil Contempt
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MEDICAL ECONOMICS CO. v. Prescribing Reference, Inc.

This memorandum opinion and order addresses Prescribing Reference Incorporated's (PRI) motion for a preliminary injunction against Medical Economics Company and ME Licensing Corporation (MEC). PRI sought to prevent MEC from using the title 'PDR Monthly Prescribing Guide,' alleging trademark infringement and irreparable harm. The Court denied PRI's motion, concluding that PRI did not adequately demonstrate a likelihood of irreparable harm, noting the lack of concrete evidence for shifting advertising revenue or actual consumer confusion. Furthermore, the Court assessed PRI's likelihood of success on the merits of its trademark infringement claim as weak, considering the descriptive nature of PRI's mark, MEC's use of its well-known 'PDR' house mark, and the sophistication of the target audience, medical professionals.

Preliminary InjunctionTrademark InfringementIrreparable HarmLikelihood of ConfusionDescriptive TrademarksHouse MarksConsumer SophisticationHealthcare PublicationsTrademark StrengthInjunctive Relief
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Johns-Manville Corp. (In Re Johns-Manville Corp.)

This case involves motions by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Boston and Maine Corporation (B&M) for mandatory withdrawal of reference from the Bankruptcy Court. The plaintiffs sought rulings that their claims against Johns-Manville Corporation, related to asbestos waste cleanup costs under CERCLA, were not barred by the automatic bankruptcy stay. The District Court examined whether the resolution of these adversary proceedings required substantial and material consideration of both the Bankruptcy Code (Title 11) and other federal laws, specifically CERCLA. Finding that significant interpretation of both federal statutes was necessary to determine when the claims arose and their interaction with the automatic stay, the court granted the motions.

BankruptcyWithdrawal of ReferenceCERCLAAutomatic StayEnvironmental LawFederal JurisdictionStatutory InterpretationContributionIndemnificationDeclaratory Judgment
References
11
Case No. ADJ4843767 (MF)
Regular
May 18, 2017

FELIX AGUILAR vs. WAREHOUSE DISCOUNT CENTER, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Felix Aguilar's petition for reconsideration. The petition failed to meet statutory and regulatory requirements by being skeletal, lacking specific references to the record and legal principles, and not detailing how evidence supported his claims. Therefore, the WCAB found the petition insufficient and dismissed it.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ reportLabor Code § 5902Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 10842Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 10846Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 10852skeletal petitionmaterial evidencespecific references
References
6
Case No. FRE 0226319
Regular
Jan 14, 2008

JUAN GUILLEN vs. SENSIENT DEHYDRATED FLAVORS, CHUBB INSURANCE, SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Juan Guillen's Petition for Reconsideration as untimely, as it was filed over five months after the deadline. Even if it had been timely, the petition would have been denied due to its skeletal nature, lacking any specific arguments or references to the record or law. The WCAB lacks jurisdiction to grant petitions filed outside the statutory timeframe.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and Awarduntimely petitionskeletal petitionjurisdictionalLabor Code section 5903Board Rule 10390Board Rule 10846tractor operatorindustrial injury
References
4
Case No. LAO 860448, LAO 860449
Regular
Mar 07, 2008

DAVID MORRIS vs. CITY OF RIVERSIDE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Dr. Khalid Ahmed's petition for reconsideration because it was untimely filed after the statutory deadline. The petition was also deemed insufficient due to its skeletal nature, lack of verification, and failure to meet regulatory requirements for supporting arguments with references to the record and law. Therefore, the Board found it lacked jurisdiction to consider the untimely and procedurally deficient petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationUnverified PetitionSkeletal PetitionUntimely PetitionLabor Code section 10609Labor Code section 4616Labor Code section 5902Labor Code section 5903
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 2,582 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