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. 06-06-00166-CR
Regular Panel Decision
May 08, 2007

James Willard Ransdell v. State

James Willard Ransdell was convicted of unlawful restraint of a child, with his conviction enhanced by a prior felony and findings of deadly weapon use and substantial risk of serious bodily injury. On appeal, Ransdell challenged the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence for the deadly weapon finding and the substantial risk of serious bodily injury. The Court of Appeals found the evidence legally insufficient to support these two findings. The court modified the trial court's judgment to delete these affirmative findings. Ransdell's conviction for unlawful detention of a child was affirmed, but his punishment was reversed and the case remanded for a new punishment determination.

Criminal LawUnlawful RestraintSufficiency of EvidenceDeadly WeaponSerious Bodily InjuryMental IllnessAppellate ReviewTrial Court JudgmentRemand for PunishmentRecantation of Testimony
References
54
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 14, 1979

Kay-Fries, Inc. v. Martino

This case involves an appeal concerning an injunction issued in a labor dispute between Kay-Fries, Inc. and Local 677 of the International Chemical Workers Union. The strike, which began on July 1, 1979, was marked by violent and unlawful conduct from union members. The Supreme Court, Rockland County, initially granted an injunction to restrain obstruction and violence. On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court's findings of union responsibility for the unlawful acts and upheld the injunction's core restraints. However, it modified certain aspects related to the number of persons permitted in a specific 'tent area' and clarified the injunction's six-month duration. The court also addressed a jurisdictional issue concerning the trial court's failure to make detailed findings of fact under Labor Law § 807, concluding that this defect was not jurisdictional for the state Supreme Court.

Labor Dispute InjunctionStrike ActivitiesUnion LiabilityPicket Line RegulationsViolence in Labor DisputesConstitutional JurisdictionAppellate ReviewFact-Finding RequirementsLabor Law Section 807Norris-LaGuardia Act
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Weitzberg v. Dubinsky

Plaintiffs, manufacturers of covered buttons, sued several unions and a dress manufacturers' association, seeking an injunction against alleged secondary boycott and unlawful restraint of trade. They also sought a declaration that an "accessory clause" in a collective agreement was illegal. Plaintiffs, members of National Covered Button and Buckle Manufacturers Association, Inc., alleged that the unions refused to contract with them unless they rejoined a former association and threatened to put them out of business by compelling customers to cease dealings. The court found that the unions were bona fide labor organizations, exempt from General Business Law provisions regarding restraint of trade. The "accessory clause" was deemed a logical part of a collective agreement. The court also determined that enforcing the clause did not constitute an illegal secondary boycott, citing a unity of interest between the unions and the defendant association. Consequently, the motion for a temporary injunction was denied, and the defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint were granted.

Secondary BoycottRestraint of TradeCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor DisputeInjunctionAccessory ClauseUnionsEmployers' AssociationGeneral Business LawDismissal of Complaint
References
6
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

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. 8171190, 8171191, 8171192, 8171200, 8171201/8263463
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 19, 2015

McDade, David Kent

David Kent McDade filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Court of Criminal Appeals, Travis County, Texas. He alleges unlawful constructive custody and restraint of liberty by the City of Austin and various officials, citing traffic citations from October 2014. McDade claims the municipal court lacks jurisdiction and accuses officials of prosecutorial vindictiveness and judicial misconduct. He asserts violations of his constitutional rights, including due process and the right to travel. The petition details numerous events supporting his claims and seeks his immediate release.

Habeas CorpusDue ProcessUnlawful ImprisonmentProsecutorial VindictivenessJudicial MisconductRight to TravelJurisdiction ChallengeTraffic CitationsConstitutional RightsState Sovereignty
References
161
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Fish Smokers Trade Council, Inc.

This civil suit, filed under the Sherman Act, targeted the Fish, Sea Food, Smoked Fish and Canning Workers Union and its officers for allegedly conspiring to suppress competition in the smoked fish market. The conspiracy involved forcing independent jobbers to join the Union, boycotting non-union jobbers, allocating customers, and imposing fines for competition, all in restraint of interstate trade. The court found that the jobbers were independent businessmen, not a labor group, and their forced unionization and anti-competitive agreements were not protected by labor laws. Concluding that the Union's actions were designed to suppress competition rather than settle a labor dispute, the court asserted jurisdiction and ordered a permanent injunction against the defendants to prevent the continuation of these unlawful activities.

Sherman ActAntitrustLabor UnionTrade RestraintConspiracySmoked Fish IndustryJobbersBoycottInjunctionNorris-LaGuardia Act
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 679 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