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
Jun 27, 2013

Whitehorn v. Wolfgang's Steakhouse, Inc.

Plaintiffs Ronald Whitehorn and William Akroyd filed a motion for class certification against Wolfgang’s Steakhouse and its owners for alleged violations of the New York Labor Law. These violations included claims for minimum wage, overtime, spread of hours, uniform reimbursement, and unlawful tip deductions for tipped employees. Defendants objected to certification on typicality grounds and sought to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the NYLL claims. The court granted the motion for class certification, finding that all Rule 23 requirements (numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, predominance, and superiority) were satisfied. Plaintiffs’ counsel, Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester, & Kirschenbaum, were appointed as class counsel.

Class ActionNew York Labor LawTipped EmployeesMinimum WageOvertimeUniform ReimbursementTip PoolingSupplemental JurisdictionRule 23Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Lopez

This interlocutory appeal concerns a trial court's order certifying a class. Appellees, policyholders of State Farm, sued the company and its directors, alleging a malicious suppression of dividends, breach of contract, and fraud due to State Farm's failure to pay adequate dividends despite significant corporate surpluses. Appellants challenged the class certification, arguing a lack of jurisdiction, that appellees had no viable cause of action impacting typicality, and antagonistic interests among class members affecting adequate representation. The appellate court affirmed the class certification, ruling that the trial court indeed had jurisdiction, the claims met typicality requirements as they arose from identical policy language and company actions, and no actual antagonism was demonstrated between past and present policyholders.

Class ActionClass CertificationInterlocutory AppealAutomobile InsuranceDividendsCorporate SurplusBreach of ContractFraudJurisdictionMutual Insurance Company
References
57
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 07, 1978

Duncan v. Tennessee

Plaintiff Wallace Duncan sued his former employer, the General Services Department of the State of Tennessee, for racial discrimination in employment practices under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Title VII. Duncan, a black mechanic, alleged he was denied promotions to supervisory roles filled by white men despite being qualified, and experienced retaliatory actions after filing an EEOC charge. He moved to certify a class of black discriminatees, which the defendant opposed, arguing a lack of typicality and commonality. The court conditionally certified a class of black employees who were qualified for and desired promotions but were denied them in favor of whites. The court excluded unsuccessful applicants and claims related to pay raises, transfer policies, and full-time employee discrimination due to lack of evidence or typicality.

Racial DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationClass ActionTitle VII42 U.S.C. § 1981Promotion DiscriminationConditional CertificationFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 23Word-of-Mouth HiringRetaliation
References
78
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Van Amerogen v. Donnini

This dissenting opinion addresses the interpretation of the 'owners of one and two-family dwellings' exemption from Labor Law liability under sections 240 and 241. Justice Levine argues that the exemption, intended to protect typical homeowners, should be strictly construed and not applied to owners who acquire residential property purely for investment and income-producing purposes. The dissent references legislative history from the Law Revision Commission, highlighting the rationale that the nondelegable duty to workers is based on the owner's dominant economic position, which breaks down for typical homeowners but not for real estate developers or investors. Therefore, the dissent concludes that such investors fall outside the protected class, maintaining that the Supreme Court correctly denied summary judgment to the defendants. The final order, however, reversed this decision, granted summary judgment to defendants, and dismissed the complaint.

Labor LawStatutory InterpretationLegislative HistoryExemption ClauseOne-Two Family DwellingsOwner LiabilityConstruction AccidentsSummary JudgmentDissenting OpinionAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 02, 1997

Robinson v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad

Plaintiffs, 25 current or former Metro-North employees, filed two class action lawsuits alleging employment discrimination based on race under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and various New York State laws against Metro-North Commuter Railroad. They sought class certification for "all African-American employees of defendant Metro-North Commuter Railroad from 1983 through 1996." The Court consolidated the two actions but subsequently denied the motion for class certification. The denial was based on the plaintiffs' failure to satisfy the commonality and typicality requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a). The Court found that the plaintiffs' statistical data and sociological opinion were insufficient to establish company-wide discriminatory practices, and individual claims varied significantly, thus lacking typicality for such a broad class.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationClass ActionClass Certification DenialFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 23Commonality RequirementTypicality RequirementStatistical EvidenceSociological OpinionTitle VII
References
19
Case No. 13-99-814-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 2001

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Lopez, Alicia

This is an interlocutory appeal challenging a trial court's order certifying a class action. The appellees, Alicia Lopez, Adan Munoz, Jr., Juan Llanes, Diana Moreno, and Albert Alaniz, sued their automobile insurance carriers, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, alleging wrongful failure to pay adequate dividends to policyholders despite significant corporate surpluses, breach of contract, and fraud. Appellants, State Farm and Wendy L. Gramm, contested the class certification on grounds of lack of jurisdiction, absence of a viable cause of action (challenging typicality), and antagonistic interests among class members (challenging adequate representation). The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's class certification order, ruling that the trial court had jurisdiction and did not abuse its discretion in finding that the class met the typicality and adequate representation requirements.

Class ActionInterlocutory AppealInsurance LawDividendsPolicyholdersJurisdictionTypicalityAdequate RepresentationAbuse of DiscretionTexas Law
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lehocky v. Tidel Technologies, Inc.

Lead Plaintiffs Robert Scott Stauffer, Robert Scott Stauffer IRA Trust, and the Jerry Keeler Revocable Trust filed a motion for class certification against Tidel Technologies, Inc. and several individual defendants, alleging violations of federal securities laws. Plaintiffs claim that Tidel and its directors artificially inflated stock prices through misrepresentations regarding the company's financial health, its relationship with its major customer CCC, and by concealing the loss of CCC as its primary supplier. The lawsuit asserts violations of Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, encompassing claims of misrepresentation and insider trading. The Court conducted a class certification hearing and evaluated the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, including numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, predominance, and superiority. After considering expert testimony on market efficiency and arguments concerning the representatives' typicality and adequacy, the Court determined that the motion for class certification should be granted.

Class ActionSecurities FraudRule 10b-5Securities Exchange Act of 1934Insider TradingMarket EfficiencyFraud on the MarketMisrepresentationMaterial OmissionsClass Certification
References
60
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 14, 1993

Claim of Patella v. Accettola

The claimant sustained an occupational disease, a finding affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board. The employer appealed this decision, arguing that the claimant's duties were not typical for a receptionist, and thus, her condition should not be considered an occupational disease. The court found no basis to reverse the Board's decisions and upheld the finding that the claimant's condition constituted an occupational disease. The decisions of the Workers' Compensation Board were affirmed without costs.

Occupational DiseaseWorkers' Compensation BoardAppealsReceptionist DutiesEmployer AppealBoard Decision UpheldAffirmed DecisionWork-Related InjuryClaimant Rights
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Julius Kayser & Co. v. Moore

The court affirmed the previous order, noting that the granting of a special preference based on specific reasons typically falls within the discretion of the calendar judge. The court found no compelling reason to overturn the trial court's order. Furthermore, the court suggested that the case could proceed promptly in its normal sequence without requiring a special preference. Justices Rich, Manning, Young, and Kapper concurred with this decision.

Order AffirmedCosts and DisbursementsJudicial DiscretionCalendar JudgeTrial Court OrderSpecial PreferencePrompt TrialAppellate Review
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Fur Liners Contractors Ass'n v. Lucchi

The court considered whether Civil Practice Act section 882-a typically permits framing issues for a contempt proceeding. It was determined that under ordinary circumstances, it does not. However, the appellants, having themselves objected to proceeding without framed issues, were precluded from raising an objection on that ground. The court found the framed issues sufficient to address the questions presented in the case. Consequently, the order under appeal was unanimously affirmed, with associated costs and disbursements.

contempt of courtframing issuesappellate procedurecivil practice actunanimous affirmationprocedural objectionappellate costsjudicial review
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 219 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