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
Mar 26, 1998

In Re Bagel Bros. Bakery & Deli, Inc.

This order addresses whether Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b) imposes an automatic stay on proceedings in a subsequently-filed bankruptcy case. The case involves three Chapter 11 cases of Bagel Bros. Maple, Inc. and Bagel Bros. Deli & Bakery, Inc. in the Western District of New York, which are related to earlier Chapter 11 cases of MBC in the District of New Jersey. MBC filed a motion in New Jersey seeking to transfer venue and requested that the New York court automatically stay its proceedings based on Rule 1014(b). Bankruptcy Judge Michael J. Kaplan ruled that Rule 1014(b) does not constitute an automatic or self-executing stay upon the mere filing of a motion. Instead, a judicial determination and order from the first-filed court (District of New Jersey) are required to impose such a stay, ensuring that substantive rights are not abridged and allowing for judicial discretion in emergency matters. Therefore, the proceedings in the Western District of New York are not automatically stayed.

Bankruptcy ProcedureAutomatic StayFederal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b)Venue TransferChapter 11 ReorganizationInter-district BankruptcyJudicial InterventionSubstantive RightsFranchise AgreementsCash Collateral Disputes
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between J. K. Welding Co. & International Union of Marine & Shipbuilding Workers of America

In a legal proceeding, an appellant sought to obtain a stay of an arbitration. The arbitration concerned the alleged discharge of three employees, a matter that purportedly violated the seniority provisions outlined in a collective bargaining agreement between the appellant and the respondent union. The court affirmed the order that denied the appellant's request for a stay of the arbitration proceedings, and awarded $10 in costs and disbursements.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementSeniority RightsEmployee TerminationStay of ProceedingsLabor DisputeUnion RepresentationAppellate ReviewContract ViolationJudicial Affirmation
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York City Transit Authority v. Amalgamated Transit Union of America

The New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) suspended employee Marvin Moses after he drove a bus with a suspended license. The appellant union, on behalf of Moses, filed a grievance asserting Moses was entitled to a determination whether his suspension was for cause, arguing his license suspension was in error and he was not properly notified. After the grievance procedure, the union demanded arbitration. The NYCTA commenced a proceeding to stay arbitration, arguing the grievance was not arbitrable because it involved enforcing statutory obligations under the Vehicle and Traffic Law. The Supreme Court granted the petition and permanently stayed arbitration. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, denied the petition, and dismissed the proceeding, finding that the broad arbitration provision in the Collective Bargaining Agreement encompassed the dispute and that the arbitrability of such issues was for the arbitrator to determine.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievance ProcedureEmployment SuspensionVehicle and Traffic LawCPLR Article 75ArbitrabilityAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationEmployer-Employee Dispute
References
8
Case No. 04-15739
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 19, 2006

Continental Casualty Co. v. Pfizer, Inc. (In re Quigley Co.)

Plaintiffs Continental Casualty Company and Continental Insurance Company initiated an adversary proceeding against Pfizer, Inc., Quigley Company, Inc. (a debtor-in-possession and Pfizer's subsidiary), and numerous other insurance companies. The plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that certain policies excluded coverage for asbestos-related claims, or alternatively, to reform them and apportion liability. Pfizer and Quigley moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim regarding anticipatory repudiation. A group of defendant insurers (Certain Insurers) sought to stay the proceeding and lift the automatic stay for arbitration. The court denied the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. It stayed Counts One, Two, and Three, and Guildhall's cross-claim, pending the arbitration of coverage disputes, granting the Certain Insurers relief from the automatic stay to commence arbitration. Count Four, concerning anticipatory repudiation, was dismissed without prejudice.

BankruptcyInsurance Coverage DisputeAsbestos LiabilityDeclaratory Judgment ActArbitration AgreementStay of LitigationMotions to DismissAnticipatory RepudiationWellington AgreementPolicy Exclusions
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Von Steen v. Musch

This case involves a special proceeding initiated by Steven Von Steen and Von Steen Asset Management, Inc. (petitioners) against their client Elisabeth Musch (respondent) to stay an arbitration. Musch had filed a demand for arbitration with the American Arbitration Association, alleging significant investment losses due to unsuitable recommendations, fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty by the petitioners. The petitioners argued that Musch's claims were time-barred and that punitive damages were not an arbitrable issue. The court, referencing federal arbitration law and Supreme Court precedents like Howsam and Mastrobuono, denied the petition, ruling that the issues of statute of limitations and punitive damages were to be decided by the arbitrator, not the court. The proceeding was dismissed, and all stays were lifted.

arbitrationinvestment disputestatute of limitationspunitive damagesFederal Arbitration ActCPLR 7502CPLR 7503securities lawinvestment managementfiduciary duty
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Insta-Bulk, Inc. v. Powertex Inc.

Powertex, Inc. sought to hold Insta-Bulk, Inc. in contempt for allegedly violating a 1983 injunction by selling patented products outside of agreed-upon territories. Insta-Bulk moved to dismiss the contempt motion, arguing the injunction was inapplicable due to an existing license agreement, or alternatively, to stay proceedings pending arbitration as per the license agreement. The District Court denied Insta-Bulk's motion to dismiss the contempt application, stating that the applicability of the injunction depended on whether Insta-Bulk's actions were authorized by the license. However, the court granted Insta-Bulk's motion to stay the contempt proceedings pending arbitration, concluding that the dispute over sales authorization fell under the license agreement's arbitration clause. The court also clarified that arbitration obligations can survive contract expiration, citing Supreme Court precedent.

ContemptInjunctionPatent InfringementLicense AgreementArbitrationStay of ProceedingsContract DisputeFederal CourtSettlement AgreementJurisdiction
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 25, 1997

Ulster Electric Supply Co. v. Local 1430, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, which granted a petition to stay arbitration. The Supreme Court determined that a prior arbitration award in favor of the appellant, which was not confirmed within one year as per CPLR 7510, warranted a stay of a subsequent arbitration proceeding initiated by the appellant based on the same claim. The court deemed the appellant's attempt to commence a second arbitration as an effort to circumvent the one-year limitations period for confirming an arbitration award. Additionally, any successive arbitration between the same parties concerning identical circumstances would violate the principles of res judicata. The appellate court affirmed the order, agreeing with the Supreme Court's decision to stay arbitration.

CPLR Article 75Stay ArbitrationArbitration AwardConfirmation PeriodRes JudicataSubsequent ArbitrationAppellate ReviewProcedural LawLimitations PeriodDutchess County Supreme Court
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 15, 1983

In re the Arbitration between New York City Transit Authority & Transport Workers Union, Local 100

In a proceeding initiated to permanently stay arbitration, the Supreme Court, Kings County, denied the application. The subsequent appeal challenged this denial. Despite some dispute regarding the extent of the Transit Authority's involvement in the arbitration, the appellate court found sufficient evidence of their participation. Consequently, the judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, which denied the application to stay arbitration, was affirmed with costs.

arbitrationappealjudgmentaffirmanceKings CountyTransit Authorityappellate reviewjudicial decisionstay of arbitrationcourt costs
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration Between Carborundum Co. & Wagner

The court affirmed an order that granted a stay to the petitioner in arbitration proceedings. Additionally, the order denied a motion made by the unions to compel the petitioner to proceed with arbitration. The decision included an award of $10 costs and disbursements. All judges concurred with the ruling.

arbitrationstay of proceedingsmotion practicecosts and disbursementspanel decision
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

1-21 v. County of Suffolk

This case arises from allegations that the County of Suffolk and Suffolk County Police Department subjected Latino individuals to discriminatory policing, including illegal traffic stops, unjustified checkpoints, and 'stop and rob' schemes. The plaintiffs, referred to as 'Plaintiffs #1-21,' filed a motion to proceed anonymously, citing fears of retaliation and deportation. The court granted this motion, acknowledging the serious nature of the allegations, particularly against Defendant Scott Greene, who is also facing criminal charges related to the 'stop and rob' scheme. Additionally, the court ordered a stay of discovery solely with respect to Defendant Greene, balancing his Fifth Amendment rights against the plaintiffs' interest in an expeditious resolution. Discovery is permitted to proceed against other defendants, and a protective order for limited disclosure of plaintiffs' identities will be submitted.

Discriminatory policingRacial profilingFourth Amendment rights violationFifth Amendment rights violationFourteenth Amendment rights violation42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims42 U.S.C. § 2000d claimsAnonymous plaintiffsStay of proceedingsSelf-incrimination
References
46
Showing 1-10 of 7,531 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