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
Jun 12, 2000

Simon v. Philip Morris Inc.

This memorandum and order addresses the preliminary issues of class certification in a nationwide smoker class action. Plaintiffs seek to certify a class of individuals who developed lung cancer due to smoking defendants' cigarettes. The defendants, referred to as "Tobacco," challenge the claims' substantive and factual viability, as well as the suitability for class action, citing varied state laws under the Erie doctrine and due process concerns. Senior District Judge Weinstein, acknowledging the complexities, reserves the decision on class certification and grants a preliminary evidentiary hearing. The court explores potential approaches to manage diverse state laws and discusses the necessity of plaintiffs demonstrating a feasible trial structure for a large class.

Class ActionSmoker Class ActionTobacco LitigationLung CancerClass CertificationRule 23Erie DoctrineConflict of LawsMultistate LitigationDue Process
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 28, 1992

Fonar Corp. v. Deccaid Services., Inc.

The court amended its findings regarding a contempt proceeding and a preliminary injunction. It found defendants Deccaid Services, Inc., Peter Kim, Louis Treglia, Stephen Steckler, and Equi Med Leasing, Inc. in knowing and willful contempt of a prior Temporary Restraining Order issued on October 2, 1991. The defendants were prohibited from copying, reproducing, selling, or using Fonar's copyrighted 'Maintenance Software' and 'Schematics' for Beta 3000 and Beta 3000M MRI Scanners. As a result of the contempt, the plaintiff, Fonar Corporation, was awarded attorneys' fees, and the court issued further prohibitions against the defendants, including David Smith and Medical Funding of America, Inc., from servicing Fonar MRI Scanners using the protected software or schematics, and from forming new business entities to circumvent the order. Additionally, the court granted a preliminary injunction, affirming irreparable harm to Fonar due to copyright infringement and trade secret misappropriation, and the likelihood of success on the merits, thereby enjoining defendants from further violations.

Copyright InfringementContempt of CourtPreliminary InjunctionSoftware ProtectionTrade SecretsMRI TechnologyIntellectual PropertyIrreparable HarmAttorneys' FeesWillful Violation
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Airlines, Inc. v. Transport Workers Union

American Airlines sought a preliminary injunction against the Transport Workers Union of America (TWU), its officers, and members, to prevent a threatened strike. The dispute stemmed from a proposed merger between American Airlines and Eastern Air Lines, which the TWU vigorously opposed, demanding absolute guarantees for job security and seniority for its 34,000 employees. The union issued public telegrams threatening a strike and scheduled a meeting to set an effective strike date. The court determined that the union's failure to utilize the dispute resolution machinery provided by the Railway Labor Act, before threatening a strike, constituted a basis for injunction. Concluding that such a strike would cause irreparable damage to American Airlines and significantly impact national transportation and defense, the court granted the preliminary injunction.

StrikePreliminary InjunctionMergerAirline IndustryLabor DisputeRailway Labor ActJob SecuritySeniorityUnion ProtestCollective Bargaining
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Herman v. Fashion Headquarters, Inc.

The Secretary of Labor sought a preliminary injunction against Fashion Headquarters and its President, Paul Cascio, for violating the "hot goods" provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(1). The defendants were accused of transporting or selling goods produced by contractors who failed to comply with FLSA minimum wage and overtime provisions. The court found that the Secretary successfully demonstrated irreparable harm would ensue without an injunction and showed a clear likelihood of success on the merits, referencing the defendants' history of non-compliance and unreliability. Although the court granted the preliminary injunction, it determined that the Secretary's proposed terms were overly broad. Consequently, a narrower injunction was issued, mandating that the defendants implement steps to ensure contractor compliance with the FLSA, including verifying adherence, reviewing payroll records, obtaining written assurances, and promptly reporting any violations to the Department of Labor.

FLSAHot GoodsPreliminary InjunctionMinimum WageOvertimeContractor LiabilityUnfair CompetitionLabor Law ViolationsEquitable ReliefJudicial Review
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 09, 1987

Kalaw v. Ferro

The petitioner, a foreign medical graduate from the Philippines, sought a preliminary injunction to prevent her deportation until she could apply for legalization or have administrative review of her interim application under the recently enacted Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. Her interim application for legalization was denied by the Buffalo INS. The court addressed the applicability of administrative appellate review to interim applications, finding it could not be determined at that time that such review was inapplicable. The court also assessed the petitioner's prima facie case for legalization, specifically whether her 'unlawful status' was 'known to the Government' before January 1, 1982. The court found serious questions regarding whether the Detroit INS knew of her unlawful status based on her employment duties as a staff psychiatrist, which appeared to involve more than incidental patient care, potentially violating H-1 visa limitations. Concluding that the petitioner demonstrated serious questions going to the merits, the prospect of irreparable harm from deportation, and a balance of hardships tipping in her favor, the court granted the preliminary injunction, enjoining her deportation until the administrative appellate authority determines its jurisdiction to review interim application denials and issues its decision.

DeportationPreliminary InjunctionImmigration Reform and Control Act of 1986Legalization ApplicationUnlawful StatusH-1 VisaJ-1 VisaAdministrative ReviewJudicial ReviewPrima Facie Case
References
1
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
Feb 01, 2002

In Re Nicholson

This class action concerns the Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) removing children from battered mothers. The court finds that ACS practices violate the constitutional rights of both mothers and children to due process and family integrity. A preliminary injunction is issued to prevent unconstitutional child removals based solely on the mother being a domestic violence victim and to ensure adequate legal representation. The injunction outlines procedures for reporting, child removal, petition drafting, and attorney compensation, including a temporary stay for implementation and appeal. Monthly compliance reports are mandated starting February 1, 2002.

Preliminary InjunctionClass ActionDomestic ViolenceChild RemovalConstitutional RightsDue ProcessFamily IntegrityLegal RepresentationAttorney CompensationNew York Family Court Act
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Oneida Indian Nat. of New York v. Madison County

The Oneida Indian Nation of New York filed a complaint challenging foreclosure actions initiated by Madison County on Nation-owned lands. The County's repeated initiation and withdrawal of foreclosure proceedings, followed by a decision to proceed without withdrawal after a Supreme Court ruling in a related case (Sherrill), prompted the Nation to seek a preliminary injunction. The court, invoking the All Writs Act, granted the injunction to prevent the state court foreclosure actions from rendering the federal court's jurisdiction moot and to preserve its ability to decide the complex issues of tribal land amenability to foreclosure. The decision emphasized the significance and complexity of the case, requiring a stay of state proceedings to allow for proper development of the record. The Nation was required to post a $3,000,000.00 security.

Indian LawTribal SovereigntyProperty TaxationForeclosureFederal JurisdictionAll Writs ActPreliminary InjunctionIntergovernmental RelationsState Court InterferenceAbstention
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 27, 1969

Heldman v. Douglas

The Supreme Court, Queens County, initially granted a preliminary injunction against defendants Douglas and Stingo in an action for an injunction and money damages. The preliminary injunction was based on a non-compete covenant in a distributor's agreement between Heldman Catering Co., Inc. and the defendants. However, the appellate court reversed this order, denying the motion for a preliminary injunction. The court found the preliminary injunction improvidently granted because the covenant was unenforceable due to Heldman Catering Co., Inc. discontinuing business, there was substantial doubt regarding the agreement's authenticity, and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the defendants' conduct was enjoinable, as the business knowledge utilized was publicly available.

InjunctionNon-compete clausePreliminary injunctionDistributor agreementContract lawAbuse of discretionCovenant not to competeBusiness discontinuationEnjoinable conductTrade secrets
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re the Arbitration Between Belding Heminway Co. & Wholesale & Warehouse Workers' Union, Local 65, C.I.O.

The case discusses a debatable question concerning the scope of a collective bargaining agreement: specifically, whether the appellant was obligated to employ members of the respondent union at its New Jersey plant. The court determined that this preliminary issue was a matter for judicial decision, not for arbitrators. Consequently, the previous orders were reversed, and the case was remitted to Special Term for further proceedings to address the stated preliminary issue.

Arbitration ScopeCollective BargainingEmployment DisputeAppellate ReviewRemittalSpecial TermUnion Membership
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 9,100 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