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

Tribune Co. v. Purcigliotti

The Tribune Company, plaintiff, filed a RICO action against multiple defendants including Robert A. Purcigliotti, Cascione, Chechanover & Purcigliotti (CCP), Dr. Walter Stingle, three unions, and 585 individual union members. Tribune alleges violations of the RICO Act, common law fraud, and unjust enrichment stemming from a scheme to file fraudulent workers’ compensation claims for hearing loss against the New York News, motivated by a past strike. Defendants moved to dismiss the claims on various grounds, including abstention, failure to plead with particularity under Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b), immunity, failure to state a claim under RICO (pattern, operation/management, causation), failure to state state-law fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims, unjust enrichment, and collateral estoppel/res judicata. The court denied most of the defendants' motions to dismiss, finding the plaintiff adequately pleaded its claims and that abstention and immunity were not applicable in most instances. However, the court granted the motions to dismiss the unjust enrichment claims against the Union and Individual defendants, finding insufficient allegations of enrichment.

RICO ActWorkers' Compensation FraudMail FraudAbstention DoctrinePleading RequirementsWitness ImmunityRacketeering EnterpriseConspiracyUnjust EnrichmentCollateral Estoppel
References
93
Case No. 08-07012-CAG
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 29, 2010

In Re Acm-Tex., Inc.

This case originated from an adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court, involving a dispute between Texas Architectural Aggregate, Inc. (TAA) and ACM-Texas, LLC and Applied Chemical Magnesias Corp. (ACM). The core of the dispute revolved around a 1999 'Letter Agreement' for mining and processing brucitic marble on TAA's property. TAA sought relief for lack of contract, fraud, unjust enrichment, conversion, and trespass. ACM filed counterclaims for breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, and promissory estoppel, among others. The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Texas, Midland Division, found the Letter Agreement to be unenforceable due to a lack of essential terms and failure to satisfy the statute of frauds. The court denied TAA's claims for fraud, accounting, tortious interference, and negligence. However, TAA's claim for unjust enrichment was granted, awarding TAA $7,125,073.08 for minerals unlawfully mined and sold by ACM. TAA's conversion and trespass claims were also granted, but the damages were subsumed into the unjust enrichment award. Conversely, while most of ACM's counterclaims were denied, its claim for promissory estoppel was granted, awarding ACM $75,000 for its detrimental reliance on TAA's promises to construct a mill.

BankruptcyAdversary ProceedingContract DisputeMineral LeaseMining RightsUnjust EnrichmentPromissory EstoppelFraudTrespassConversion
References
101
Case No. 08-70200
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Architectural Aggregate, Inc. v. ACM-Texas, LLC (In re ACM-Texas, Inc.)

This case concerns a protracted dispute between Texas Architectural Aggregate, Inc. (TAA) and Applied Chemical Magnesias Corporation (ACM) and ACM-Texas, LLC, over mineral mining rights in Culberson County, Texas. TAA filed various claims including breach of contract, fraud, unjust enrichment, conversion, and trespass, while ACM counter-claimed for similar issues. The Court deemed the initial 1999 Letter Agreement unenforceable due to a lack of material terms and non-compliance with the statute of frauds. Ultimately, TAA was awarded $7,125,073.08 for ACM's unjust enrichment, conversion, and trespass related to unlawfully mined materials. ACM, in turn, received $75,000 in reliance damages under promissory estoppel for the construction of a mill, with all other claims and counterclaims denied.

Mining DisputeMineral RightsContract DisputeUnjust EnrichmentPromissory EstoppelConversionTrespassBankruptcy Adversary ProceedingLetter Agreement EnforceabilityFraud Claims
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Skolny v. Hillman

Plaintiffs, manufacturers of men's and boys' clothing, filed an action against Sidney Hillman, Jacob S. Potofsky, and the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, alleging an unlawful conspiracy. The plaintiffs sought an injunction to prevent the defendants from instigating strikes, picketing, and coercing employees to unionize, claiming these actions violated their 'open shop' employment contracts. Defendants denied the charges, arguing their actions were lawful labor practices and challenged the complaint's legal sufficiency. The court denied the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings and granted the plaintiffs' motion for an injunction pendente lite, affirming that such alleged acts constituted a common law conspiracy and warranted injunctive relief.

Labor disputeInjunctionConspiracyPicketingUnionizationEmployment contractsUnincorporated associationsPendente liteCommon law conspiracyOpen shop
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bacon v. County of Westchester

This case involves an appeal by the plaintiffs seeking damages for unlawful imprisonment. The Supreme Court, Westchester County, initially granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing the complaint. The appellate court dismissed the appeal from the intermediate order but reversed the judgment, vacated the lower court's order, denied the defendants' motion, and reinstated the complaint. The court found that the defendants' two-hour detention of the plaintiffs during a search warrant execution might not be privileged, thereby raising factual issues regarding their conduct and qualified immunity. Additionally, a prior federal court decision in a civil rights action was deemed not to have collateral estoppel effect on the state law claim of false imprisonment, as the federal court declined to exercise pendent jurisdiction and did not reach a determination on the merits.

Unlawful ImprisonmentFalse ImprisonmentSummary JudgmentAppealSearch WarrantQualified ImmunityCollateral EstoppelCivil RightsState LawPendent Jurisdiction
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Morris v. United Parcel Service

Plaintiff, a former United Parcel Service employee and union member, was discharged for alleged theft after being accused of stealing a package of watches. Although he was arrested, he was later acquitted of petit larceny. An arbitrator subsequently found his discharge was not for just cause and ordered his reinstatement with back pay and benefits. Following this, the plaintiff commenced an action against United Parcel Service for false imprisonment/unlawful arrest. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing preemption by the Labor Management Relations Act and the National Labor Relations Act, and sought to add affirmative defenses. Special Term denied summary judgment but granted leave to amend the answer. The appellate court affirmed the denial of summary judgment, concluding the tort claim was not preempted, but found that Special Term erred in refusing to dismiss the defendants' affirmative defenses regarding federal preemption and the exclusivity of Workers' Compensation Law § 11.

False ImprisonmentUnlawful ArrestLabor Management Relations Act PreemptionNational Labor Relations Act PreemptionCollective Bargaining AgreementWorkers' Compensation LawExclusive Remedy ProvisionSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewTort Claim
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 04, 2007

FCI Group, Inc. v. City of New York

This case involves an action brought by a contractor against the City of New York and the Department of Citywide Administrative Services (DCAS) for the balance due on a construction contract. The defendants contended that the plaintiff forfeited its right to further payment due to the attempted bribery of two city employees by the plaintiff's president. The Supreme Court initially denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, but this Court reversed that decision. It found that the contract's narrow alternative dispute resolution clause was inapplicable to the dispute. Crucially, the Court concluded that the plaintiff was bound by the contract’s forfeiture provision and that its enforcement did not offend public policy, as the unlawful conduct was central to the performance of the contract, thereby barring recovery.

Construction ContractContract ForfeitureBriberyPublic PolicyAlternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)Summary JudgmentUnlawful GratuitiesEthical ConductContract InterpretationNew York City Charter
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

E. Williamson Roofing & Sheet Metal Co. v. Town of Parish

The dissenting opinion argues that the majority erred in dismissing a contractor's negligence claim against a town. The dissent contends the town violated Labor Law § 220 (3-a) (a) by failing to determine worker classifications, which resulted in the contractor incurring damages for underpayment of prevailing wages. It asserts that the statute's legislative intent includes protection for contractors and that denying a negligence cause of action leaves the contractor without an effective remedy for reimbursement. Additionally, the dissent argues against dismissing the unjust enrichment claim. It advocates for the order to be modified, denying the defendant's summary judgment motion and granting, in part, the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on liability in negligence, remitting the matter for further proceedings on damages and contributory negligence.

NegligenceStatutory DutyLabor LawPrevailing WagePublic WorksUnjust EnrichmentSummary JudgmentContributory NegligenceReimbursementLegislative Intent
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tosha Restaurants, LLC v. New York State Division of Human Rights

Shane A. Fuller was terminated from his part-time dishwasher position at a Denny's Restaurant due to a skin condition (psoriasis and cellulitis). He filed a complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights, alleging disability discrimination. The Administrative Law Judge and subsequently the Commissioner of Human Rights found the employer guilty of an unlawful discriminatory practice under Executive Law § 296 and awarded Fuller damages for lost pay, counseling, and pain and suffering. The employer (petitioner) commenced a proceeding to annul this determination. The court reviewed the employer's explanations for termination (customer complaints, health concerns, scheduling issues) and found them to be pretexts for discrimination. The court confirmed the determination of the New York State Division of Human Rights and dismissed the employer's petition.

Disability DiscriminationEmployment TerminationPsoriasisCellulitisUnlawful Discriminatory PracticeExecutive LawHuman Rights LawAppellate ReviewAdministrative DeterminationPretext for Discrimination
References
23
Case No. W2017-00487-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 20, 2018

Victor Cole v. Joe Caruso

Plaintiff Victor Cole sued Defendant Joe Caruso alleging unjust enrichment after their business association ended. A jury initially found Caruso unjustly enriched and awarded Cole $10,000, later increased by additur to $50,000. Caruso appealed, arguing Cole failed to establish a prima facie case for unjust enrichment. The Court of Appeals found that while Cole did confer benefits, he failed to present sufficient evidence that Caruso's retention of those benefits without further payment was unjust, especially given that Cole had already received $13,000 in compensation. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's denial of Caruso's motion for directed verdict and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss the unjust enrichment claim.

Unjust EnrichmentDirected VerdictPrima Facie CaseAppellate ReviewQuasi-ContractContract Implied-in-LawCompensationBenefits ConferredTennessee Court of AppealsCivil Procedure
References
30
Showing 1-10 of 867 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