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
May 07, 2003

Blyer v. STATEN ISLAND CABLE LLC.

Petitioner, Alvin Blyer, Regional Director of Region 29 of the National Labor Relations Board, sought a preliminary injunction against respondents Time Warner Cable and Local 3. The injunction aimed to prevent the enforcement of Section 7 of their collective bargaining agreement (CBA), which the petitioner argued constituted an improper 'union signatory' agreement, violating Section 8(e) of the NLRA. This section limited Time Warner's ability to subcontract work only to companies that had agreements with Local 3. The court found reasonable cause to believe that Section 7 had an improper secondary purpose, dictating the labor policies of non-signatory entities like Advantage Cable, rather than genuinely preserving work for the bargaining unit. Consequently, the court granted the injunction, enjoining the respondents from enforcing the contested provisions of Section 7 of the CBA.

Collective Bargaining AgreementUnion Signatory AgreementUnfair Labor PracticesPreliminary InjunctionNLRA Section 8(e)NLRA Section 10(l)Work PreservationSecondary ObjectiveSubcontractingLabor Dispute
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pastrana v. Folding Box, Corrugated Box & Display Workers Local 381

The plaintiffs, employees of Star Corrugated Box Co., Inc. and members of Local 381, sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the enforcement of a collective bargaining agreement between Local 381 and Star. They alleged that union officers executed the agreement despite employee rejection, violating their duty of fair representation under the National Labor Relations Act. The court found no evidence of discrimination, distinguishing the cited precedents. Furthermore, it was noted that Local 381, as the statutory bargaining representative, had the right to enter the agreement. The plaintiffs' delay in seeking relief, coupled with the National Labor Relations Board's dismissal of related unfair labor practice charges against the employer (thus validating the contract), led the court to deny the motion for preliminary injunction. The court emphasized that granting the injunction would disrupt economic interests and that plaintiffs failed to show a clear right to relief.

Preliminary InjunctionCollective Bargaining AgreementNational Labor Relations ActDuty of Fair RepresentationLachesUnfair Labor PracticesUnion Contract RejectionFederal CourtLabor LawInjunctive Relief
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jamestown Sterling Corp. v. United Furniture Workers of America

The case involves Jamestown Sterling Corporation and nonunion employees seeking an injunction against the United Furniture Workers of America union to stop picketing during a labor dispute. Plaintiffs alleged illegal picketing, denial of access to the plant, and incidents of violence, asserting that public officers failed to provide adequate protection. Judge William B. Lawless found that while some scuffles occurred, the plaintiffs failed to prove systematic unlawful acts or the inability of law enforcement to control the situation. The court concluded that the picketing was largely peaceful, with isolated incidents not warranting an injunction. Consequently, the application for injunctive relief was denied.

Labor DisputePicketingInjunctionUnionEmployer RightsEmployee RightsFreedom of SpeechLabor LawNew York Civil Practice ActIndustrial Relations
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Silberberg v. Board of Elections

This is an action seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent the enforcement of New York Election Law § 17-130(10), which prohibits voters from displaying their marked ballots. The plaintiffs, who wish to take and share "ballot selfies," argue that the law infringes upon their First Amendment right to freedom of speech. The court considered the standing of the plaintiffs, the standards for a preliminary injunction, and the likelihood of success on the merits, including whether polling places constitute a public forum, the law's viewpoint neutrality, and its reasonableness in protecting election integrity against voter bribery and intimidation. The court ultimately denied the motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that the law is a reasonable, viewpoint-neutral regulation in a nonpublic forum, and that granting an injunction so close to the election would disrupt the electoral process and not serve the public interest.

Election LawFirst AmendmentFreedom of SpeechBallot SelfiesVoter IntimidationVote BuyingPreliminary InjunctionPublic Forum DoctrineViewpoint NeutralityReasonableness Standard
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 1938

Sea Gate Ass'n v. Sea Gate Tenants Ass'n

The Sea Gate Association, a private membership corporation in New York, sought a temporary injunction to prevent tenants from picketing within its private community. The association argued its right to enact and enforce rules against picketing to maintain the private residential character of Sea Gate and protect property values. The defendants, who were tenants protesting an increase in beach charges, contended that their picketing was lawful and that the streets within Sea Gate should be considered public, thus asserting violations of their constitutional rights. The court, however, emphasized the distinction between public and private rights, reaffirming the association's established authority to impose reasonable restrictions on its private property. Given that no labor dispute was involved and based on prior rulings confirming Sea Gate's private status, the court concluded that the rule against picketing was reasonable and had been breached. Consequently, the temporary injunction was granted against the defendants.

Private Property RightsTemporary InjunctionPicketing RegulationConstitutional RightsPrivate CommunityMembership CorporationProperty RegulationsTenant DisputeNew York LawBeach Access Fees
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Clark v. Cuomo

The plaintiff, chairman of the New York Republican State Committee, sought a preliminary injunction against Governor Mario M. Cuomo to stop the implementation of Executive Order No. 43, which established a state program for voter registration. The plaintiff argued the order was unconstitutional and illegal, violating the bipartisan mandate for voter registration and exceeding the Governor's authority by usurping legislative power. The court found the plaintiff likely to succeed on the merits, emphasizing that the New York Constitution vests control of voter registration and elections solely with the Legislature. The court ruled that the Governor lacked the authority to establish such a program, which invaded the legislative domain. Consequently, the motion for a preliminary injunction was granted, restraining the Governor from enforcing Executive Order No. 43.

Voter RegistrationExecutive Order ChallengeSeparation of PowersLegislative AuthorityGovernor's PowersPreliminary InjunctionConstitutional LawElection LawPublic PolicyJudicial Review
References
8
Case No. Adv. No. 12-09801(SMB)
Regular Panel Decision

In re Old Carco LLC

Chrysler Group LLC (New Chrysler) moved to enforce a prior Sale Order, arguing it precluded Michigan, Illinois, and Indiana from using Old Carco LLC's unemployment insurance experience rating to determine New Chrysler's tax rate. The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, presided over by Judge Stuart M. Bernstein, denied the motion without prejudice. The Court found it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the Tax Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1341, because the states provided a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy for New Chrysler to challenge the tax assessments in state courts. The decision highlighted the jurisdictional barrier of the Tax Injunction Act, which prevents federal courts from interfering with state tax collection, even in bankruptcy proceedings related to interpreting a sale order.

BankruptcyTax Injunction ActUnemployment Insurance TaxSuccessor LiabilitySale OrderFree and ClearJurisdictionState TaxationFederalismChapter 11
References
56
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 23, 1978

Barabas v. Prudential Lines, Inc.

The American Radio Association (ARA) and individual radio officers sought a preliminary injunction to enforce an arbitration award. The award directed Prudential Lines, Inc. to ensure that the sale of thirteen vessels to Delta Steamship Lines, Inc. included the current radio officer complement and an undertaking from Delta to maintain their employment. The court denied the motion, finding that while the plaintiffs raised serious questions regarding the award's enforceability under labor laws, they failed to demonstrate that the balance of hardships tipped decidedly in their favor. The court noted significant irreparable harm to Prudential and Delta, including potential loss of a $100 million deal, business disruption, and adverse effects on the domestic maritime industry. Ultimately, the potential economic losses for the defendants and broader public interest outweighed the plaintiffs' claim of irreparable job loss.

Preliminary InjunctionLabor-Management Relations ActArbitration Award EnforcementSherman Antitrust ActShipping Act of 1916National Labor Relations ActUnfair Labor PracticesCollective Bargaining AgreementMaritime IndustryVessel Sale
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 20, 2002

Conway v. Brooklyn Union Gas Co.

Plaintiff Katrina Conway commenced an employment discrimination lawsuit against Brooklyn Union Gas Company. After extensive settlement discussions, the parties, through their attorneys, reached an oral agreement for $40,000, conversion of termination to resignation, a neutral reference, and withdrawal of all pending lawsuits. Conway subsequently attempted to renege on the agreement, stating she did not understand the terms regarding dismissal of pro se actions and felt the monetary amount was insufficient. The defendant moved to enforce the settlement, seeking an injunction against future lawsuits and attorney's fees. Magistrate Judge Levy recommended enforcing the oral settlement but denying the injunction and attorney's fees, finding that Conway's attorney had apparent authority and the parties intended to be bound. District Judge Gershon adopted this Report and Recommendation in its entirety, declaring the oral settlement enforceable.

Employment DiscriminationOral Settlement EnforcementAttorney Apparent AuthorityIntent to be BoundVexatious LitigationInjunction DenialAttorney Fees DenialRule 11 SanctionsContract LawFederal Civil Procedure
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ley v. Rochester Regional Joint Board, Local 14A

Rhonda P. Ley, Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board, filed a petition against the Rochester Regional Joint Board, Local 14A (Union) seeking a preliminary injunction. Ley alleged that Article XXII of the collective bargaining agreement between the Union and Xerox Corporation (Employer) constituted an unlawful 'union signatory' agreement under Section 8(e) of the National Labor Relations Act. Furthermore, Ley claimed that the Union's continued attempts to enforce Article XXII violated Sections 8(b)(4)(ii)(A) and (B) of the Act. The Union argued that Article XXII was a lawful work preservation provision. The Court found reasonable cause to believe the Union was violating the Act and that a preliminary injunction was just and proper to prevent further statutory violations and maintain public interest. Consequently, the preliminary injunction was granted, enjoining the Union from enforcing Article XXII.

Labor LawPreliminary InjunctionUnfair Labor PracticeNational Labor Relations ActUnion Signatory AgreementWork PreservationCollective Bargaining AgreementSubcontractingArbitrationDistrict Court
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 1,412 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