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

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

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

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

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

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

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

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

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

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

This case addresses the legality of non-judicial foreclosure in Tennessee. Angeline Renee Drake defaulted on her home loan, leading to a non-judicial foreclosure by CitiMortgage, Inc. When CitiMortgage sought possession through an unlawful detainer action, Drake counterclaimed, asserting that the non-judicial foreclosure process violated the Tennessee Constitution and public policy. The trial court dismissed Drake's counterclaim and granted summary judgment to CitiMortgage. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed, ruling that non-judicial foreclosure does not involve state action, which is a prerequisite for state constitutional violations, and that the process does not contravene public policy as it is legislatively sanctioned. The court also found sufficient evidence of default notice and proper advertisement of the foreclosure sale.

Non-judicial foreclosureUnlawful detainerDeed of trustState action doctrineTennessee Constitutional LawDue process challengePublic policySummary judgment appealAppellate reviewConstitutional challenge to statutes
References
47
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

Plaintiff Ernest L. Robinson, III challenged the Town of Kent's anti-littering ordinance (Chapter 45, Section 45-12) alleging it violated his First Amendment rights after he was stopped from distributing flyers on car windshields. He also claimed police officers Darren Cea and Thomas Carroll unlawfully restricted his general distribution of flyers and detained him. The court granted Plaintiff's cross-motion, finding Section 45-12 unconstitutional as applied to him due to the Town's failure to provide objective evidence justifying the restriction. The court denied the defendants' motion for qualified immunity for the officers, citing disputed material facts regarding their conduct. However, the court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment regarding the Town's liability for the officers' conduct, as the plaintiff failed to establish a municipal policy or custom leading to the alleged violation.

First Amendment RightsFreedom of SpeechAnti-Littering OrdinanceSummary JudgmentQualified ImmunityMunicipal LiabilityPolice MisconductLeafletingPublic ForumConstitutional Law
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

Elvin J. Gant, Jr. filed a discrimination charge with the Texas Commission on Human Rights on July 9, 1999, alleging race/national origin, color, sex, and age discrimination, stemming from a racial slur, lack of promotion, and eventual termination. After receiving a right-to-sue letter, Gant sued the County, asserting claims under the Texas Human Rights Act for unlawful failure to hire, unlawful discharge, and unlawful retaliation. The County moved for summary judgment, arguing Gant failed to exhaust administrative remedies by not filing his complaint within 180 days of the alleged racial slur. The appellate court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for Gant's race discrimination claims (failure to hire, unlawful discharge), concluding that the racial slur itself did not constitute an unlawful employment practice triggering the 180-day filing period. However, the court reversed and dismissed Gant's retaliation claim for lack of jurisdiction, finding he failed to exhaust administrative remedies as this claim was not included in his initial complaint and was not factually related to the race discrimination charge.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationRetaliation ClaimAdministrative Remedies ExhaustionSummary Judgment AppealTexas Human Rights ActJurisdictional DefectUnlawful Employment PracticeProbational PeriodRacial Slur
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

Plaintiff Michael J. Levantino filed a § 1983 action against New York State Police and individual state troopers (Keith M. Skala, John Doe #1, and John Doe #2) alleging false arrest, false imprisonment, and violations of his due process and equal protection rights. These claims arose from an arrest for suspected marijuana cultivation, where he was allegedly subjected to a warrantless search, handcuffed, interrogated without Miranda rights, and detained for almost 24 hours without probable cause, only for charges to be dismissed when evidence showed he was wrongly identified. Defendants moved to dismiss, and Plaintiff cross-moved to amend the complaint, seeking to remove certain defendants and claims while adding others. The court denied the motion to dismiss as moot and granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff's cross-motion to amend, allowing claims for false arrest, false imprisonment, deliberate delay of paperwork (procedural due process), and unlawful search/seizure against Skala and Horgan (who replaced John Doe #1) in their individual capacities to proceed. Other claims, including prima facie tort and claims against John Doe #2 and the New York State Police, were denied or terminated.

False ArrestFalse Imprisonment42 U.S.C. § 1983Fourth Amendment ViolationProcedural Due ProcessQualified Immunity DefenseMotion to DismissMotion to Amend ComplaintIllegal Search and SeizureProbable Cause
References
67
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

Cyril Nathaniel Kendall, a lawful permanent resident from Guyana, faced deportation proceedings after convictions for rape and subsequent grand larceny and forgery charges. While detained at Rikers Island, an Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) detainer was lodged against him. Kendall filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming the INS detainer prevented his release on bail and violated his constitutional rights. The Government moved to dismiss, arguing that Kendall was in state custody, not federal, and that an INS detainer merely served as a notice, not a basis for habeas jurisdiction. The District Court granted the Government's motion, dismissing Kendall's petition for lack of jurisdiction, asserting he remained in the custody of New York State officials.

Immigration LawHabeas CorpusFederal JurisdictionINS DetainerState CustodyRipeness DoctrineJudicial RestraintDeportation ProceedingsAggravated FelonyConstitutional Rights
References
56
Showing 1-10 of 660 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