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

Waite v. Waite

Justice Frost writes a concurring and dissenting opinion regarding Mr. Waite's challenges to the Texas no-fault divorce statute. She concurs with the court's decision on attorney's fees and most constitutional challenges, but dissents from the court's rejection of Mr. Waite's challenge under Article I, Section 6 of the Texas Constitution, which guarantees 'rights of conscience.' Justice Frost argues that the no-fault divorce statute impermissibly interferes with religious freedom by requiring courts to evaluate the 'legitimate ends of the marital relationship,' an inquiry that she contends is inherently religious for many and thus outside the proper jurisdiction of civil courts. She advocates for applying a 'strict scrutiny' test, finding no compelling state interest to justify this intrusion and noting the availability of less restrictive alternatives for no-fault divorce.

Texas ConstitutionReligious FreedomRights of ConscienceNo-Fault DivorceMarital RelationshipJudicial InquiryStrict ScrutinyArticle I Section 6Texas Family Code Section 6.001Appellate Law
References
79
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fox News Network, L.L.C. v. Time Warner Inc.

This case arises from a dispute between Time Warner and Fox concerning Time Warner's decision not to carry Fox News on its New York City cable channels. Fox initially sued Time Warner, prompting Time Warner to file counterclaims alleging that Fox conspired with New York City officials to unlawfully coerce Time Warner into carrying Fox News. Time Warner's counterclaims assert violations of its First Amendment and Due Process rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and tortious interference with contractual relations. Fox moved to dismiss these counterclaims, arguing that its actions were protected by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, which generally shields lobbying activities. The court denied Fox's motion, concluding that Time Warner had adequately alleged a conspiracy and that the Noerr-Pennington doctrine might not apply if Fox's conduct was found to be illegal or corrupt, thus allowing the counterclaims to proceed.

First Amendment RightsDue ProcessSection 1983Noerr-Pennington DoctrineCable ActAntitrustLobbyingFreedom of SpeechConspiracyMotion to Dismiss
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 02, 1979

New York Times Co. v. Newspaper & Mail Deliverers' Union

The New York Times Company (Times) and the Newspaper and Mail Deliverers’ Union of New York and Vicinity (NMDU) are embroiled in a dispute over staffing levels at the Times' Carlstadt, New Jersey facility. The Times initiated reduced manning for daily paper production, which the NMDU deemed a breach of their collective bargaining agreement, leading to a sustained work stoppage. Following an interim arbitration award that the NMDU rejected, the Times sought a preliminary injunction in court. The District Court, presided over by Judge Sweet, determined that the manning dispute is subject to the arbitration provisions of the collective bargaining agreement. Consequently, the court directed the NMDU to cease its work stoppage and proceed to arbitration, while also scheduling an evidentiary hearing to assess the criteria for issuing a preliminary injunction against the union.

Collective BargainingArbitrationWork StoppagePreliminary InjunctionLabor DisputeManning DisputeFederal PolicyNorris-LaGuardia ActCollective Bargaining AgreementJudicial Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 07, 2003

Rypkema v. Time Manufacturing Co.

Rose Rypkema and Ted Rypkema sued Time Manufacturing Company for product liability after Rose Rypkema suffered injuries using a "Versalift" boom lift, alleging design defect and breach of warranty. Time moved for summary judgment, seeking to exclude the Rypkemas' expert, Nicholas Bellizzi, whose testimony lacked scientific methodology and testing for proposed alternative designs. District Judge Sweet, applying Daubert and Kumho Tire standards, excluded Bellizzi's testimony. Consequently, with no expert evidence to support the product liability claim, the court granted Time's motion to dismiss the complaint and Savvy Systems, Ltd.'s cross-motion to dismiss the third-party complaint, concluding there was insufficient evidence for product liability.

Product LiabilityExpert TestimonyDaubert StandardKumho Tire StandardSummary JudgmentDesign DefectFailure to WarnEngineering MethodologyAerial LiftLatch Failure
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 03, 2007

Johnson v. RGIS Inventory Specialists

This case involves a lawsuit by Joél Johnson against RGIS Inventory Specialists alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) regarding unpaid overtime and minimum wages. Johnson, an auditor, claimed she was not compensated for travel time, 'wait time' (arriving early at meet sites or inventories, and waiting for company transportation), and time spent donning and doffing equipment. RGIS sought summary judgment, arguing these activities were non-compensable preliminary or postliminary activities or de minimis. The court granted summary judgment in part, denying claims related to general travel time, wait time incidental to company transportation, and doffing. However, it denied summary judgment for claims concerning work performed while traveling after March 2004, wait time prior to an inventory, and donning equipment, finding genuine issues of material fact.

Fair Labor Standards ActFLSAWagesOvertimeMinimum WageTravel TimeWait TimeDonning and DoffingSummary JudgmentEmployment Law
References
90
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York Times Co. v. Newspaper & Mail Deliverers' Union of New York & Vicinity

The New York Times Company initiated a contempt action against the Newspaper and Mail Deliverers’ Union of New York and Vicinity (NMDU) and three union officials (Douglas LaChance, Lawrence May, Monte Rosenberg). The action stemmed from the defendants' alleged violation of a June 4, 1980 consent order, which mandated compliance with "status quo" rulings by an Impartial Chairman in collective bargaining disputes. On September 17, 1980, NMDU members engaged in a work stoppage following an employee's suspension, despite an Impartial Chairman's ruling that the suspension did not alter the status quo and ordering a return to work. The court found NMDU and Lawrence May guilty of contempt, ordering them to pay $229,718 in compensatory damages to the Times. However, the court denied the application for contempt against Douglas LaChance and Monte Rosenberg, and also denied the Times' request for a prospective fine.

Labor DisputeContempt of CourtNo-Strike ClauseArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementWork StoppageDamagesUnion LiabilityWildcat StrikeStatus Quo Ruling
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Perez v. Time Moving & Storage

Plaintiff Leonor Dátil Perez, acting pro se, sued Time Moving & Storage for $3.9 million in property damage to her newspaper collection, allegedly due to the defendant's negligence. A key dispute arose regarding the presence of Joseph Candella, a principal of Time Moving, during the deposition of the defendant's employees. The motion court initially barred Candella from the depositions, citing plaintiff's claims of intimidation. However, the Appellate Division reversed this order, ruling that the plaintiff's assertions did not meet the 'unusual circumstances' standard required to exclude a party from a deposition under CPLR 3103(a). The court emphasized a party's right to be present per CPLR 3113(c) and Candella's role in assisting counsel and trial strategy.

DepositionsWitness ExclusionCorporate RepresentationPro Se LitigantCivil ProcedureAppellate ReviewCPLR 3113CPLR 3103IntimidationDiscovery Dispute
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Horn v. New York Times

The New York Court of Appeals addresses whether the narrow exception to the at-will employment doctrine, established in Wieder v Skala, applies to a physician employed by a nonmedical entity like the New York Times. Dr. Sheila E. Horn, formerly Associate Medical Director, alleged wrongful termination for refusing to disclose confidential employee medical records without consent and for not misinforming employees about workers' compensation eligibility, citing professional ethical standards. While lower courts extended the Wieder exception, which applied to lawyers in a common professional enterprise, the Court of Appeals reversed. The court concluded that Horn's role involved corporate management responsibilities related to workers' compensation and did not constitute the 'very core' of her employment in the same way as a lawyer's professional services to a law firm's clients. Therefore, the ethical rules cited did not impose a mutual obligation between Horn and the Times to practice law in compliance with specific professional codes, as required for the Wieder exception.

At-will employmentBreach of contractPhysician-patient privilegeProfessional ethicsCorporate employmentRetaliatory dischargeWieder v Skala exceptionEmployment lawConfidentialityMedical director
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alleyne v. Time Moving & Storage Inc.

Plaintiffs Marcel Alleyne and Earl Legrande filed a class action lawsuit against Time Moving & Storage, Inc. and The Time Record Storage Company, LLC, alleging failure to pay overtime wages in violation of federal FLSA and New York Labor Law. Defendants invoked the motor carrier exemption as a defense. The parties reached a class settlement agreement for the state law claims, which was provisionally certified. Following objections from some class members regarding the fairness of the settlement, class certification, and attorney's fees, the Court, presided over by Judge Vitaliano, granted final class certification and approved the settlement. The Court found the settlement fair and reasonable given the risks of litigation, denied the objectors' motion to intervene, and approved attorney's fees of $60,000.

Class ActionOvertime WagesFair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawMotor Carrier ExemptionWage and Hour ClaimsClass SettlementSettlement ApprovalAttorney's FeesRule 23 Certification
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tasini v. New York Times Co., Inc.

Jonathan Tasini, a freelance writer, filed a complaint against The New York Times Company, challenging a "Release Agreement" offered to writers after a prior copyright infringement judgment (Tasini I). Tasini alleged the agreement, which required writers to waive claims to keep their articles in electronic databases, was unlawful and unenforceable, citing interference with copyright relief, unconscionability, duress, and breach of good faith. The New York Times moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The District Court, presided over by Judge Robert L. Carter, granted the dismissal, concluding that Tasini lacked both constitutional and prudential standing and failed to establish federal question jurisdiction, as the dispute largely involved state contract law. The dismissal was without prejudice.

Copyright LitigationArticle III StandingPrudential StandingFederal JurisdictionContract DisputeMotion to DismissDeclaratory ReliefFreelance JournalismElectronic DatabasesSouthern District of New York
References
45
Showing 1-10 of 5,894 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