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 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

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

Pavilion Nursing Home v. Litto

The case concerns a motion for a preliminary injunction filed by a proprietary nursing home against a defendant union and John Litto. The plaintiff sought to enjoin the defendants from picketing, interfering with business, and coercing recognition, following the union's call for a recognitional strike. While a petition for an election was pending with the State Labor Relations Board (NYSLRB), and the NLRB had declined jurisdiction, the union initiated a strike solely to compel recognition, which the court deemed illegal. Citing various precedents, the court granted the preliminary injunction, emphasizing that the union must adhere to established legal procedures through the NYSLRB. The injunction was conditional, set to terminate by September 15, 1965, or sooner if the union won an election.

Labor LawPreliminary InjunctionRecognitional StrikeUnion RecognitionState Labor Relations BoardNational Labor Relations BoardPicket LineCollective Bargaining AgentUnfair Labor PracticeJudicial Precedent
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Roche v. Bruder

Petitioner Anthony J. Ferraro, president of the Westchester Chapter of the Civil Service Employees Association, sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the City of White Plains from compelling him to return to his assistant engineer duties. Ferraro had been dedicating his full time to union affairs since 1975 while receiving an engineer's salary, a practice he claimed was a condition of employment. The City ordered him back to work in 1978, prompting an improper practice charge with PERB and this injunction request. The court denied the preliminary injunction, finding no clear legal right to the relief, no demonstration of irreparable injury to the union members, and that a balancing of equities favored the City, which was suffering substantial monetary loss by paying a full salary for no engineering services.

Union PresidentPreliminary InjunctionPublic EmploymentCollective BargainingIrreparable HarmTaylor ActPERBImproper Practice ChargeStatus QuoEquitable Relief
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anaconda Co., Wire & Cable Division, Inc. v. Local 404 International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers, AFL-CIO

The plaintiff, an electrical wire and cable manufacturer, sought a preliminary injunction against its former employees and their local union to prevent physical obstruction, threats of violence, and to limit the number of pickets at its Hastings-on-Hudson plant. The plaintiff announced the plant's closure in June 1975 due to economic reasons, leading to the termination of the union contract. Defendants argued the dispute was a labor dispute under New York State Labor Law § 807 and that picketing was protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The court found no labor dispute as the plant was ceasing operations. While affirming the right to peaceful picketing, the court granted a preliminary injunction restraining trespassing, obstruction of ingress/egress, and acts of violence, but denied the request to limit the number of pickets, emphasizing that conduct, not numbers, determines legality.

Preliminary injunctionLabor disputePicketing rightsPlant closureFreedom of speechConstitutional rightsUnlawful actsTemporary injunctionIngress and egressProperty rights
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Douds v. Local 50, Bakery & Confectionery Workers International Union

The case concerns a motion for a preliminary injunction filed by Arnold Bakers, Inc. against Local 50 of the Bakery and Confectionery Workers International Union of America (A.F. of L.). Arnold Bakers, Inc. sought to prevent the union from picketing its plant, alleging a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(C) of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947. The petitioner contended that the picketing aimed to induce a strike or concerted refusal to handle goods, thereby forcing recognition of Local 50 despite another union being certified. However, the court found no evidence that the picketing had successfully encouraged any strike or work stoppage by employees or a secondary boycott by other employers. Consequently, the court denied the preliminary injunction, concluding that the union's actions, while potentially irritating, did not constitute an enjoinable unfair labor practice under the specific section cited.

Labor disputePicketingUnfair labor practicePreliminary injunctionLabor Management Relations ActSecondary boycottCollective bargainingUnion recognitionEmployer-employee relationsNational Labor Relations Board
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

International Association of Machinists Workers v. Alitalia-Linee Aeree Italiane, S.p.A.

The plaintiff union sought a preliminary injunction against Alitalia, alleging violations related to employee medical coverage, job preferences for part-time employees, and the unjust discharge of Joseph Cammarata, arguing these constituted breaches of collective bargaining agreements and the Railway Labor Act. The court determined that most of the plaintiff's claims, specifically those concerning medical reimbursement and part-time employee numbers, were 'minor disputes' under the Railway Labor Act and fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Alitalia System Board of Adjustment. Regarding Cammarata's discharge, the court found no irreparable damage justifying injunctive relief, noting his current medical inability to work. Ultimately, the court denied the preliminary injunction, concluding that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or a likelihood of success on the merits, and that the System Board of Adjustment was the proper forum for resolving these disputes.

Preliminary InjunctionRailway Labor ActMinor DisputesSystem Board of AdjustmentCollective Bargaining AgreementAnti-Union AnimusIrreparable HarmFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureEmployment PracticesMedical Coverage
References
4
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

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
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
Showing 1-10 of 494 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