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
Apr 11, 1986

Rivera v. Feinstein

Plaintiffs Manuel Rivera, Idalia Gonzalez, and members of Local 2H sought a preliminary injunction to prevent a disciplinary hearing against Gonzalez and to secure office access for Rivera, arguing violations of LMRDA free expression rights. They also moved for leave to file a supplemental complaint. The court denied the preliminary injunction, finding no irreparable harm and noting that internal union remedies should be exhausted, particularly as charges against Gonzalez were partially withdrawn and an explanation could resolve the dispute. Rivera's office access was deemed an arbitration issue. However, the court granted leave to file the supplemental complaint, finding no undue delay or prejudice to the defendants.

Union DisputeLabor RightsPreliminary InjunctionLMRDAFree SpeechIntra-union ConflictDisciplinary HearingSupplemental ComplaintExhaustion of RemediesArbitration
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Groth v. Daimler Chrysler Corp.

This legal motion pertained to a request for leave to appeal from an Appellate Division order. The Appellate Division had previously denied reargument in the underlying case. The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, reasoning that the Appellate Division's order did not constitute a final determination as defined by the Constitution. Separate from this, any other aspects of the motion for leave to appeal were also denied.

References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Zachari

A motion for leave to reargue or for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals was denied. The decision included an award of $10 costs. Justices Breitel, Rabin, Valente, Eager, and Steuer concurred with the decision.

Motion to ReargueLeave to AppealCourt of AppealsCosts AwardedJudicial Concurrence
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Duralite Co. v. Local 222, Metal, Plastics, Miscellaneous Sales, Novelty and Production Workers

A motion for leave to reargue or for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals was denied, with an imposition of $10 costs. The decision was concurred by Justice Presiding Breitel, along with Justices Rabin, M. M. Frank, Valente, and McNally.

Motion to ReargueLeave to AppealCourt of AppealsCosts AwardedConcurring JusticesAppellate DivisionDenial of Motion
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Clark v. New York City Transit Authority

The motion seeking leave to appeal from the Appellate Division order denying appellant’s motion to vacate and the Appellate Division order denying appellant’s motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals was dismissed. The dismissal was based on the ground that the said orders do not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution. The motion for leave to appeal was otherwise denied.

Leave to appealAppellate DivisionMotion to vacateCourt of AppealsDismissedFinal determinationConstitutional interpretationMotion denied
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Howard v. New York Times

This case concerns a motion seeking leave to appeal from an Appellate Division order, which had affirmed a Workers' Compensation Board determination. The Board's determination denied an application for reconsideration and/or full Board review. The motion for leave to appeal, insofar as it pertained to the Board's denial of reconsideration, was dismissed on the grounds that this portion of the order did not constitute a final determination within the meaning of the Constitution. The remaining aspects of the motion for leave to appeal were denied.

Motion PracticeLeave to AppealAppellate ReviewWorkers' CompensationBoard ReviewReconsiderationJurisdictionFinality of OrderConstitutional LawDismissal
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Pegoraro v. Tessy Plastics Corp.

The motion, seeking leave to appeal from an Appellate Division order denying reargument or, alternatively, leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, was dismissed because the order does not constitute a final determination of the proceeding as defined by the Constitution. All other aspects of the motion for leave to appeal were denied.

Motion PracticeLeave to AppealAppellate ProcedureJurisdictionFinality of OrderCourt of AppealsReargumentConstitutional Law
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of the Estate of DeRosa v. Evans Plumbing & Heating Co.

This legal text describes a motion wherein the movants sought leave to appeal an Appellate Division order related to a Workers' Compensation proceeding. The motion was dismissed because the movants had already pursued leave to appeal the same Appellate Division order in the Court of Appeals, as indicated by a prior ruling. Additionally, any other aspects of the motion for leave to appeal were denied. The court cited *Selinger v Selinger* as a precedent for its decision to dismiss the current application for leave to appeal.

Workers' CompensationLeave to AppealAppellate DivisionCourt of AppealsMotion DismissedMotion DeniedPrior ApplicationJudicial PrecedentProcedural Ruling
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hroncich v. Edison

The City of New York filed a motion for leave to file a brief amicus curiae and for leave to appear amicus curiae on an appeal. The court granted both motions, accepting the proposed brief as filed. For the appearance amicus curiae, the leave was granted only to the extent that the proposed brief was accepted. The City is required to serve two copies and file nineteen copies of the brief within seven days. Chief Judge Lippman did not participate in this decision.

Amicus CuriaeMotion PracticeLeave to AppealBrief FilingProcedural OrderCourt of AppealsNew York Law
References
0
Case No. OAK 301894 OAK 314306
Regular
Oct 11, 2007

ROXANNE HENDRIX vs. OAKLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, JT2 INTEGRATED SERVICES

This case concerns an employee terminated due to exhausting paid leave after an industrial injury, which she alleged was discriminatory under Labor Code section 132a. The Board denied reconsideration, finding the employer acted in accordance with Education Code section 45192. This specific education code provision, which mandates placing employees who exhaust leave on a reemployment list, supersedes the general anti-discrimination provisions of section 132a in this context.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code section 132adiscriminationindustrial injurycustodianterminationpaid leavetemporary disabilityreemployment listEducation Code section 45192
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 1,348 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