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. W2014-02286-COA-R9-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 20, 2016

Kim Hardy v. Tournament Players Club at Southwind, Inc., d/b/a TPC Southwind,

The Tennessee Supreme Court granted an interlocutory appeal to determine if an employee has a private right of action against an employer under the Tennessee Tip Statute (Tenn. Code Ann. section 50-2-107) for improper tip payment. The trial court initially dismissed the employee's claim, finding no such private right. However, the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, relying on its prior 1998 holding in *Owens v. University Club of Memphis*. The Supreme Court found that the *Owens* decision was inconsistent with its subsequent jurisprudence on implying private rights of action, particularly in *Brown* and *Premium Finance*. Consequently, the Court declined to apply the doctrine of legislative inaction and held that no private right of action exists under section 50-2-107. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' judgment and affirmed the trial court's dismissal.

Private Right of ActionTennessee Tip StatuteWage RegulationEmployee CompensationImplied Cause of ActionLegislative InactionStatutory InterpretationClass ActionMotion to DismissAppellate Review
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Plasti-Line, Inc. v. Tennessee Human Rights Commission

A private employer, referred to as 'Appellant', brought an action for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, challenging the constitutionality of enforcement provisions within the Tennessee Human Rights Commission statutes (T.C.A. §§ 4-21-301 to 307). The Appellant argued that these statutes violated the separation of powers, the right to trial by jury, and judicial election provisions of the Tennessee Constitution. The Chancellor initially upheld the validity of the statutes and dismissed the action. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision, finding no merit in the Appellant's claims. The Court highlighted that the Human Rights Commission functions as an administrative agency, administering public policy, and its orders are subject to judicial review and enforcement by the chancery court, thus not violating constitutional principles.

Human Rights LawDiscrimination LawEmployment DiscriminationAdministrative LawConstitutional ChallengeSeparation of PowersRight to Jury TrialStatutory ValidityTennessee ConstitutionAppellate Decision
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jamur Productions Corp. v. Quill

This case involves multiple actions seeking damages from labor unions following the 1966 New York City transit strike. The defendants, referred to as "the Unions," moved for dismissal of all complaints due to legal insufficiency. Plaintiffs asserted various claims, including intentional violation of the Condon-Wadlin Act and a court injunction, prima facie tort, and breaches of human rights and contractual theories. The court granted the defendants' motions, ruling that the Condon-Wadlin Act does not create a private right of action for damages. It further determined that the alleged damages were too remote and indirect to sustain claims of prima facie tort, and that claims based on human rights declarations, stock diminution, and contract were without merit. The decision emphasizes that remedies for the general public regarding public employee strikes must originate from legislative action rather than judicial adjudication.

Transit StrikePublic EmployeesLabor UnionsCondon-Wadlin ActPrima Facie TortStatutory InterpretationCivil LiabilityRemote DamagesInjunction ViolationCollective Bargaining
References
13
Case No. W2011-01874-COA-R9-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 14, 2012

Hubert Morrison v. The City of Bolivar

This case involves an interlocutory appeal to determine if the Tennessee Revenue Bond Law permits a private right of action for utility rate payers against the City of Bolivar and its utility. The Appellees, utility rate payers, alleged illegal transfers of surplus utility revenues in violation of the Act. The trial court denied the Appellants' motion to dismiss, asserting a private cause of action could be maintained. However, the Court of Appeals, after reviewing the statute and legislative intent using the Brown factors, concluded that the Revenue Bond Law does not expressly or implicitly create an individual private right of action for rate payers. The court found the statutory remedy of repayment to the utility and potential ouster of officials to be exclusive, and that implying a private right of action would be inconsistent with the Act's purpose of utility self-sufficiency and operating at the lowest possible cost to consumers. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded for entry of judgment in favor of the Appellants.

Revenue Bond LawUtility RatesPrivate Right of ActionStatutory ConstructionLegislative IntentClass ActionMotion to DismissAppellate ReviewTennessee LawMunicipal Utilities
References
19
Case No. No. 2
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 2024

Matter of Clifton Park Apartments v. New York State Division of Human Rights

CityVision, a non-profit, filed a discrimination complaint against Pine Ridge Apartments with the New York State Division of Human Rights (DHR). After DHR dismissed the initial complaint, Pine Ridge's attorney sent a letter to CityVision and employee Leigh Renner threatening litigation for "false, fraudulent and libelous" allegations. In response, CityVision and Renner filed a retaliation complaint, which DHR upheld, finding the letter to be an adverse action. The Appellate Division annulled DHR's determination, concluding that the letter did not constitute adverse action and DHR improperly shifted the burden regarding protected activity. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, holding that a threat of litigation can indeed constitute adverse action under the Human Rights Law, supported by substantial evidence. However, the Court remitted the matter to DHR for proper analysis of the "protected activity" element, as DHR had improperly shifted the burden of proof.

Retaliation claimHuman Rights LawAdverse actionThreat of litigationFamilial status discriminationBurden of proofProtected activityHousing discriminationAppellate reviewAdministrative law
References
18
Case No. No. E2008-01758-COA-R9-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Brown v. Tennessee Title Loans, Inc.

The Tennessee Supreme Court heard an interlocutory appeal to determine if the Tennessee Title Pledge Act (TTPA) permits a private right of action by pledgors against title pledge lenders for charging excessive interest and prohibited fees. The trial court initially dismissed the claims, but the Court of Appeals reversed, finding such a right. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision, holding that the TTPA does not explicitly or implicitly create a private right of action. The Court found the TTPA's intent to be regulatory and penal, without legislative support for private enforcement, and concluded that the statute of limitations provision only modifies existing common law actions. The case was remanded to the Hamilton County Circuit Court for remaining claims under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act.

Private Right of ActionStatutory InterpretationTennessee Title Pledge ActClass ActionConsumer Protection ActInterlocutory AppealMotion to DismissLegislative IntentStatutory ConstructionPredatory Lending
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McDonald v. Piedmont Aviation, Inc.

Plaintiff Paul F. McDonald sued Piedmont Aviation, Inc. alleging a violation of Section 43 of the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 (49 U.S.C. § 1552). McDonald claimed Piedmont failed to grant him preferential hiring as a dislocated protected employee, a pilot from Air New England, when Piedmont hired other pilots in 1981 and refused McDonald employment in 1982. Piedmont moved to dismiss the action, arguing Section 43 does not create a private right of action and that McDonald's rights had not ripened due to a lack of Department of Labor regulations. The court denied both motions, finding that Section 43 implies a private right of action and that the absence of regulations does not negate the statutory rights. The court also denied Piedmont's motion to stay the action pending an unrelated case in the District of Columbia, citing differing issues and potential prejudice to the plaintiff.

Airline Deregulation ActEmployee Protection PlanPrivate Right of ActionHiring PreferenceStatutory InterpretationDepartment of Labor RegulationsMotion to DismissMotion to StayFederal JurisdictionAirline Industry
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rokus v. American Broadcasting Co., Inc.

Vincent Rokus, an author of a copyrighted musical recording, sued American Broadcasting Company, Inc. (ABC) after ABC refused to broadcast his television commercial. Rokus sought an order directing ABC to broadcast the commercial without deletions and sought compensatory and punitive damages, asserting federal claims under the Copyright Act of 1976, Title Fifteen of the United States Code, the First Amendment, and the Communications Act of 1934, along with state law claims. The District Court, presided by Judge Edward Weinfeld, granted ABC's motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. The court found that Rokus failed to state a valid claim under the Copyright Act as ABC did not copy or use his work, and no threatened infringement was alleged. Claims under Title Fifteen (federal trade laws) were dismissed because only the Federal Trade Commission can enforce them, and Rokus failed to identify a private right of action. First Amendment claims were dismissed as ABC's actions were not governmental. Lastly, claims under the Communications Act were dismissed as it does not provide a private right of action for enforcement or a private right of access to broadcast media. Consequently, state law claims were dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Copyright InfringementFreedom of SpeechFederal Communications ActPrivate Right of ActionMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6)Commercial AdvertisingBroadcast Media RegulationState Action DoctrineSubject Matter Jurisdiction
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Graziano v. Medford Plaza Associates, Ltd.

Guy Graziano, an employee of Coca-Cola Company, sustained personal injuries after falling in a parking lot and received workers' compensation benefits. His insurance carrier initiated Action No. 2, as assignee, against prior property owners and managing agents after notifying Graziano of the assignment of his claim if he failed to sue within 30 days. Separately, Guy and Maureen Graziano commenced Action No. 1 against prior owners and the current owner, 210 West 29th Street Corp. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the Grazianos' action, ruling their claims were assigned to the carrier. On appeal, the order was modified: the dismissal of Action No. 1 was denied, and both actions were consolidated. The appellate court concluded that the carrier had waived its rights as an assignee against 210 West 29th Street Corp. by failing to pursue a claim against them.

Workers' Compensation LawAssignment of ClaimsPersonal InjuryProperty Owner LiabilityStatute of LimitationsWaiver of RightsConsolidation of ActionsAppellate ReviewInsurance SubrogationNew York Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 2001

Daniel v. Safir

Plaintiff Elridge Daniel, Jr., proceeding pro se, initiated a civil rights lawsuit alleging constitutional violations stemming from his 1995 arrest and criminal harassment prosecution. The action named several defendants, including judicial officers, private attorneys, a law firm, and corporations. Magistrate Judge Steven M. Gold recommended dismissing claims against all defendants for reasons such as judicial immunity for judges and law clerks, lack of state action for private entities, and inadmissibility of criminal statutes as private rights of action. District Judge Nina Gershon adopted this report entirely, granting motions to dismiss all federal claims against most defendants with prejudice, and state law claims against Robert Friedman without prejudice. All motions for sanctions by both parties were also denied.

Civil RightsPro Se LitigantMotion to DismissJudicial ImmunityState Action DoctrineEleventh AmendmentConspiracy ClaimsPrivate ActorsSupplemental JurisdictionRule 11 Sanctions
References
55
Showing 1-10 of 15,750 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