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

Hard Rock Cafe International, (USA), Inc. v. Hard Rock Hotel Holdings, LLC

Plaintiff Hard Rock Café International (USA), Inc. (HRCI), owner of 'Hard Rock' trademarks, sued Hard Rock Defendants and Equity Holder Defendants for breach of contract, trademark dilution, infringement, and unfair competition. The Hard Rock Defendants counterclaimed for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and tortious interference. The court addressed multiple motions to dismiss and a motion to compel arbitration. Claims against most Equity Holder Defendants were dismissed, except for Morgans Management. The motion to compel arbitration for issues related to the 'Rehab' TV show and the Tulsa and Albuquerque properties was granted, but a motion to stay the action pending arbitration was denied. The court also granted HRCI's motion to dismiss certain breach of contract counterclaims and the tortious interference counterclaim, while denying dismissal for other breach of contract counterclaims and the good faith and fair dealing counterclaim.

Trademark DisputeLanham ActUnfair CompetitionBreach of ContractMotion to DismissArbitrationLicensing AgreementJoint TortfeasorGood Faith and Fair DealingTortious Interference
References
72
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brownstone Publishers, Inc. v. New York City Department of Buildings

The petitioner publishing company sought information from the New York City Department of Buildings (DOB) under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) in a computer tape format. The DOB offered the information in hard copy, citing no obligation to accommodate format preference, despite the petitioner's claim of substantial cost and difficulty in re-digitizing hard copies. The court, noting New York's Public Officers Law, emphasized the requirement for 'full' or 'maximum' access to records, which includes computer tapes or discs. It determined that providing over a million pages in hard copy would not constitute reasonable or maximum access. The court found no significant hardship for the DOB to provide the data electronically at the petitioner's expense. Consequently, the CPLR article 78 petition was granted, directing the DOB to provide the electronic records in computer tape format.

Freedom of Information LawPublic Officers LawInformation FormatElectronic RecordsHard CopyData AccessCPLR Article 78Government TransparencyCommercial InterestsNew York City Department of Buildings
References
2
Case No. ADJ8231283
Regular
Dec 01, 2019

MARTIN OLIVAS vs. GARABALDI COMPANY, LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration because the challenged order was not a "final" order determining substantive rights or liabilities. The WCAB also denied the applicant's petition for removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy. The underlying issue involved the applicant's demand for a written hard copy of the defendant's Medical Provider Network (MPN) list, which is not statutorily required. The applicant's remedies for accessing the MPN and obtaining treatment were deemed sufficient.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityThreshold IssueInterlocutory OrderSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable Harm
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 26, 1987

People v. Miller

This appeal concerns a judgment of conviction from Rochester City Court, entered August 26, 1987, convicting defendant-appellant Miller of a probation violation and sentencing him to one year in Monroe County Jail. Miller raised two issues: the failure to provide a written copy of probation orders at sentencing and sentencing without an updated presentence investigative report. The court found that while CPL 410.10 (1) mandates written probation orders at sentencing, the delayed provision by a probation officer before conditions took effect did not prejudice Miller's substantial rights, thus not warranting reversal. However, the court concluded that the failure to obtain an updated presentence investigative report before resentencing, nine months after the original report, constituted reversible error under CPL 390.20 (2) (b) based on established legal precedents. Consequently, the conviction was reversed, and the matter remitted to Rochester City Court for an updated presentence investigation report and resentencing.

Probation violationSentencing procedureCriminal Procedure LawWritten probation ordersPresentence investigation reportRight of allocutionAppellate reviewConviction reversalRemand for resentencingMisdemeanor sentencing
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 15, 2006

Harding v. Onibokun

This medical malpractice action involves infant plaintiff Kyla Harding who sustained injuries due to the negligence of defendant Adedayo Onibokun. A jury found the defendant liable and awarded damages of $150,000 for past pain and suffering and $5,000,000 for future pain and suffering. The defendant moved to set aside the verdict, alleging excessive damages and that the liability finding was swayed by sympathy. The court denied the motion to set aside the liability finding and the past pain and suffering award. However, the motion to set aside the future pain and suffering award was granted, with a new trial on damages unless the plaintiff stipulates to a reduced amount of $2,950,000.

Medical MalpracticeJury VerdictDamagesPain and SufferingErb's PalsyNegligenceExcessive DamagesWeight of EvidenceConditional RemittiturJudicial Review
References
49
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chambers v. TRM Copy Centers Corp.

Lorenzo Chambers filed an employment discrimination suit against TRM Copy Centers Corporation under Title VII, alleging wrongful termination. TRM countered with claims of performance issues and a violation of their anti-moonlighting policy. The court acknowledged weaknesses in TRM's justifications but found no direct or indirect evidence of discrimination, such as statistical data or prejudiced remarks. The judge determined that the employer's inadequate explanation for dismissal does not, by itself, constitute affirmative evidence of discrimination. Consequently, TRM's motion for summary judgment was granted, leading to the dismissal of Chambers' claims.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIISummary JudgmentRacial DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationWrongful TerminationAfter-Acquired EvidenceMoonlighting PolicyBurden of ProofDisparate Treatment
References
17
Case No. ADJ3235679
Regular
May 10, 2011

JENNIFER MILLER vs. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior award finding the defendant violated Labor Code section 132a. The defendant argued the finding of discrimination was speculative and lacked sufficient evidence. The Board is granting reconsideration to thoroughly review the case, especially given the absence of the applicant's response to the petition. An order was issued requiring the applicant to submit a copy of her answer for the Board's review.

Labor Code section 132adiscriminationreconsiderationFindings and Awardapplicantdefendantworkers' compensation judgeWCJReport and Recommendationdue process
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chau v. United States Securities & Exchange Commission

This case involves Wing F. Chau and Harding Advisory LLC (plaintiffs) seeking to enjoin an administrative proceeding initiated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Plaintiffs argue that the SEC's choice of an administrative forum, instead of a federal district court, violates their due process and equal protection rights. The court, applying the Thunder Basin and Free Enterprise Fund factors, concludes it lacks subject matter jurisdiction to interrupt the ongoing agency adjudication. The court found that SEC adjudication would not foreclose meaningful judicial review, the claims were not wholly collateral to the SEC proceeding, and the SEC was competent to consider the fairness of its proceedings and related constitutional claims in the first instance. Therefore, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and granted the SEC's motion to dismiss the action.

Securities RegulationAdministrative LawDue ProcessEqual ProtectionSubject Matter JurisdictionPreliminary InjunctionMotion to DismissSEC EnforcementCollateralized Debt Obligations (CDOs)Investment Advisors Act
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 28, 1997

Lurzer GMBH v. American Showcase, Inc.

Lurzer GMBH sued American Showcase, Inc. and The One Club For Art & Copy, Inc. for various claims, including trademark infringement, false advertising, and breach of contract. American had previously initiated arbitration regarding a breach of contract claim. Defendants moved to stay Lurzer's lawsuit pending arbitration, while Lurzer cross-moved to stay or dismiss the arbitration. The Court denied the defendants' motion to stay except for specific breach of contract, fiduciary duty, and good faith/fair dealing claims, finding the arbitration clause in the 1987 Agreement valid and broadly applicable to contract-related disputes, but not trademark ownership disputes. The Court also denied Lurzer's motion to stay or dismiss American's arbitration claim regarding advertising page limits, confirming the arbitration clause's applicability and the nature of the claim as non-past due moneys.

Arbitration AgreementTrademark DisputeContract InterpretationBreach of Fiduciary DutyCovenant of Good Faith and Fair DealingStay of ProceedingsFraudulent InducementFederal Arbitration ActScope of ArbitrationAdvertising Contract
References
7
Case No. ADJ9173159
Regular
Dec 09, 2016

GARY COTTLE vs. TONY'S EXPRESS, CALIFORNIA TRUCKERS' SAFETY ASSOCIATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the applicant's petition for reconsideration of a prior administrative law judge's (WCJ) order. This order addressed penalties for unreasonable delay in payment and sanctions for bad faith litigation. Crucially, the WCAB has not received a petition for reconsideration from defendant CTSA and requires them to submit a copy of their petition and proof of timely filing within 20 days. Failure to comply will result in the WCAB proceeding with only the applicant's petition.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code Section 5814Unreasonable DelayCompensation PaymentLabor Code Section 5813Bad Faith LitigationLienTimely FiledProof of Service
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 495 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