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
Feb 17, 2012

In re Bank of America Corp. Securities, Derivative, & Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) Litigation

Plaintiffs moved for class certification in a securities fraud lawsuit against Bank of America Corporation (BofA) concerning alleged misstatements and omissions related to its acquisition of Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. The claims were brought under both the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933. The Court, presided over by District Judge P. Kevin Castel, granted the motion to certify all proposed classes, including those for 1934 Act claims, 1933 Act claims, and purchasers of January 2011 call options. The Court found that the plaintiffs satisfied all Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) requirements for class certification, rejecting the defendants' arguments regarding the merits of the Section 14(a) claim, the rebuttable presumptions of reliance, and the scope of the class definitions. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, and Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP were appointed as class counsel.

Class ActionSecurities FraudRule 23 CertificationPredominance RequirementNumerosity RequirementCommonality RequirementTypicality RequirementAdequacy of RepresentationSecurities Exchange Act of 1934Securities Act of 1933
References
63
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Needle Trades Workers' Industrial Union

The indictment charges the defendants, including the Needle Trades Workers’ Industrial Union, with violating the Sherman Anti-Trust Act by conspiring to restrain interstate trade in raw skins. The conspiracy involved preventing non-union dressers from processing skins and dealers from shipping to them, employing violent tactics such as threats, assaults, destruction of property, and the use of explosives. The court addressed whether these actions constituted a restraint of interstate commerce, differentiating between local strikes with indirect effects and direct interference with interstate trade. It concluded that the alleged prevention of New York dealers from shipping skins to New Jersey dressers constituted a direct, substantial, and intentional interference with interstate commerce. The court also affirmed that shipping goods for processing across state lines is considered interstate commerce and clarified that the National Industrial Recovery Act did not repeal the Sherman Anti-Trust Act or legalize such a conspiracy. Consequently, the demurrer challenging the sufficiency of the indictment was overruled.

Sherman Anti-Trust ActInterstate CommerceLabor UnionConspiracyDemurrerIndictmentTrade RestraintViolenceSecondary BoycottLabor Disputes
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Summit Construction Services Group, Inc. v. ACT Abatement, LLC

Plaintiff, a general contractor named Summit, sued its subcontractor, ACT Abatement, LLC, and insurance brokers Allen Freeman, Scott Handwerger, and A. Logan Insurance Brokerage for fraudulent misrepresentation. Plaintiff alleged that the insurance brokers provided inaccurate certificates of insurance, leading Summit to believe ACT had valid workers' compensation coverage. Two ACT employees were injured while uninsured, forcing Summit to cover their claims and incur increased insurance premiums. The court found that the disclaimers on the certificates of insurance made it unreasonable for Summit to rely on them as proof of coverage. Therefore, the motions for summary judgment and dismissal of the complaint by the defendant insurance brokers were granted, dismissing the claims against them.

Fraudulent MisrepresentationInsurance Broker LiabilityWorkers' CompensationSummary JudgmentCertificate of InsuranceDisclaimer ClauseNegligent MisrepresentationGeneral ContractorSubcontractorInsurance Coverage Lapse
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 08, 1978

In re Mycuta A.

This case involves a juvenile respondent who admitted to acts constituting assault in the third degree. A dispositional hearing was held in Bronx County Family Court to determine the applicability of amendments to Family Court Act Section 756, which became effective on September 1, 1978. The court addressed two primary legal questions: first, whether the revised one-year maximum initial placement for misdemeanor acts applied, and second, whether the provisions for direct placement into a secure facility by the Family Court were applicable. The court ruled that both amended provisions applied to the respondent, as the adjudication occurred after the amendment's effective date. Consequently, the respondent was placed with the Division for Youth for one year, with the Division authorized to place her directly into a secure facility if deemed appropriate.

Juvenile DelinquencyFamily Court ActPlacementSecure FacilityMisdemeanorEx Post FactoStatutory InterpretationDivision for YouthBronx County Family CourtDispositional Hearing
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Opn. No.

This legal opinion addresses whether cost-of-living adjustments paid by the New York City Transit Authority (TA) to its employees, represented by the Transport Workers Union of America (TWU), are subject to suspension under the wage freeze provisions of the Financial Emergency Act for the City of New York. The Act, enacted in 1975 to address the city's fiscal crisis, includes the TA as a 'covered organization' whose salary and wage increases are suspended. The opinion concludes that cost-of-living adjustments constitute 'salary or wages' based on common interpretation and legal precedents. Therefore, the opinion holds that such payments by the TA would violate the Act's wage freeze mandate, aligning with the legislative intent to prevent the city's financial collapse.

Wage freezeCost-of-living adjustmentsFinancial Emergency ActNew York City fiscal crisisPublic employeesCollective bargainingStatutory interpretationEmergency powersGovernmental entitiesEconomic stabilization
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Barnett v. Jamesway Corp. (In Re Jamesway Corp.)

This memorandum decision addresses a dispute concerning the administrative priority of attorneys' fees awarded under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act) to former employees of Jamesway Corp., as well as the scope of a prior summary judgment decision. The court determined that post-petition attorneys' fees, stemming from the debtor's continued litigation and loss, are entitled to administrative expense priority under the Bankruptcy Code. This decision applies to Union employees who accepted offers of judgment, deemed "Accepting Plaintiffs," as their offers were executory accords breached by Jamesway. However, the decision explicitly excludes "Grievance Claimants," as their terminations occurred before the WARN Act triggering event. The ruling emphasizes the public policy behind fee-shifting statutes to encourage legal representation for workers and ensure compliance.

WARN ActAdministrative PriorityAttorneys' FeesBankruptcy CodeExecutory AccordOffer of JudgmentWage ClaimsEmployee RightsStatutory InterpretationPost-petition Claims
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McLeod v. Compressed Air, Foundation, Tunnel, Caisson, Subway, Cofferdam, Sewer Construction Workers, Local No. 147 of New York, New Jersey States & Vicinity

The Regional Director of the Second District of the National Labor Relations Board sought an injunction against a labor organization (the Union) under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act. The Director believed the Union violated Sections 8(b)(3) and 8(d) of the Act by refusing to bargain collectively and failing to provide proper notice for modification or termination of an existing collective bargaining agreement with Andrew Catapano Co., Inc. and Grow Construction Co., Inc. (C-G). The Union ceased work on a sewer construction project in Brooklyn, New York, arguing negotiations concerned a future contract, not modification of the current one. District Judge Bartels found reasonable cause to believe the work stoppage stemmed from a dispute over modifying an existing agreement without proper notice, constituting an unfair labor practice. The petition for injunction was granted, and a motion to amend the petition to include termination violation was also granted.

National Labor Relations ActInjunctionUnfair Labor PracticeCollective BargainingContract ModificationContract TerminationWork StoppageLabor DisputeRegional Director NLRBSection 10(j)
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 13, 2009

Zuckerberg v. Port Authority

The injured plaintiff, a police lieutenant for the Port Authority, sustained injuries after tripping over a door saddle at John F. Kennedy International Airport. After receiving workers' compensation, he and his wife filed a lawsuit against the Port Authority under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). The Port Authority moved for summary judgment, arguing FELA was inapplicable and workers' compensation was the exclusive remedy. The Supreme Court granted the motion, concluding that FELA did not apply because the alleged negligence was not connected to the Port Authority's interstate railway operations. This appellate court affirmed the decision, emphasizing that for FELA to apply, the defendant's negligent act must be committed while it is engaging in interstate commerce related to its railway operations, which was not the case here as the accident occurred in an airport office.

Federal Employers' Liability ActPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentInterstate CommerceRailroad LiabilityPolice EmploymentAirport AccidentPort AuthorityExclusive RemedyAppellate Review
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

CLARA C. v. William L.

The concurring opinion, penned by Judge Levine, addresses the unconstitutionality of Family Court Act § 516 as applied to Thomas L. C., arguing it denies the child equal protection under the law. While judicial restraint typically advises against reaching constitutional issues, the opinion asserts this rule is not absolute, especially when public interest and recurring issues necessitate prompt resolution. It challenges the State's interests previously upheld in Bacon v Bacon, citing subsequent legal developments and advancements in genetic testing, which have significantly reduced the "complex and difficult problems of proof" in paternity cases. The opinion concludes that the discriminatory treatment of nonmarital children under § 516, which bars them from seeking paternity adjudication and support based on a father's current means, lacks a substantial relationship to a legitimate State interest. Therefore, it advocates for reversing the order and remitting the case to Family Court, Kings County, with a declaration that Family Court Act § 516 is unconstitutional as applied.

Equal Protection ChallengeFamily Court Act Section 516Paternity ProceedingsNonmarital Children's RightsChild Support AgreementsConstitutional ScrutinyGenetic Testing EvidenceJudicial Precedent OverhaulState Interest DoctrineParental Support Modification
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fernbach v. 3815 9th Avenue Meat & Produce Corp.

The Regional Director for Region 2 of the National Labor Relations Board petitioned the court for injunctive relief under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act. The petition sought an interim order to halt alleged unlawful labor practices and mandate the reinstatement of five employees discharged on October 22, 2011, amid union organizing efforts. The court found reasonable cause to believe the employer violated the Act, noting the close temporal proximity between the employer learning of union activity and the discharges, and the pretextual nature of the employer's cost-saving justification. It also determined that injunctive relief, including a cease and desist order and employee reinstatement, was just and proper to restore the status quo and mitigate the chilling effect on unionization caused by the discharges. Consequently, the court granted the petition for injunctive relief.

National Labor Relations ActNLRBSection 10(j)Injunctive ReliefUnfair Labor PracticeEmployee DischargeUnion OrganizingReinstatementCease and DesistLabor Law
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 3,536 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