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

Legal Aid Society v. Association of Legal Aid Attorneys

The Legal Aid Society sought a preliminary injunction against the Association of Legal Aid Attorneys and its officers to prevent the disciplining of striking union members who crossed picket lines. The plaintiff also claimed tortious interference and a civil rights conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) on behalf of itself, non-striking attorneys, and indigent clients. The District Court denied the injunction, finding several impediments to success on the merits. These included the NLRB's primary jurisdiction, the Norris-LaGuardia Act's prohibitions, and the plaintiff's lack of standing for third-party claims. Furthermore, the court determined that the conspiracy allegations under Section 1985(3) were conclusory and lacked substantial merit.

Labor DisputePreliminary InjunctionUnion DisciplinePicket LinesNational Labor Relations Act (NLRA)Norris-LaGuardia ActStanding (Law)Conspiracy (Law)Civil Rights (42 U.S.C. § 1985(3))Tortious Interference
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Feller

The case involves a petitioner's motion to stay arbitration proceedings initiated by respondents under a collective bargaining agreement. The petitioner argues the agreement's provisions for sick benefit and vacation holiday fund payments violate the Taft-Hartley Act (Labor Management Relations Act, 1947). The court addresses the applicability of the Act to the petitioner and the agreement's effective date, determining these issues are moot if the provisions are legal. The court finds the sick benefit fund contributions legal due to a grandfather clause. Regarding the vacation-holiday fund, the court interprets the Act liberally, concluding that contributions to a separate, but associated, vacation fund are also legal despite a literal reading. Consequently, the motion to stay arbitration is denied.

Taft-Hartley ActCollective Bargaining AgreementArbitration StayLabor Management Relations ActSick Benefit FundVacation Holiday FundInterstate CommerceContract LegalityStatutory InterpretationFederal Labor Law
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 27, 2007

Rochester-Genesee Regional Transportation Authority v. Brigid Hynes-Cherin

The Rochester-Genesee Regional Transportation Authority (RGRTA) and its subsidiary, Regional Transit Service (RTS), moved to stay a Federal Transit Administration (FTA) decision dated July 30, 2007. The FTA had ordered RGRTA to cease providing school bus services on routes deemed "prohibited school bus operations" and barred RGRTA from receiving certain federal funds. RGRTA appealed this decision under the Administrative Procedure Act and sought a stay pending judicial review. The court, presided over by Judge Larimer, granted the stay in part, postponing the effective date of the FTA's order until October 1, 2007. This partial stay was granted primarily to prevent irreparable harm and potential chaos in student transportation due to the imminent start of the school year, despite the court not being convinced that RGRTA was likely to prevail on the merits or would suffer irreparable harm. The court emphasized the public interest in ensuring orderly student transportation. All other aspects of the plaintiff's motion for a stay were denied.

School Bus TransportationFederal Transit Administration (FTA)Stay OrderAdministrative Procedure Act (APA)Judicial ReviewPublic InterestIrreparable HarmTripper ServicePublic TransportationCompetition Law
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 14, 1960

In re the Arbitration between Luggage Workers Union, Local 60, ILGP & NWU & Major Moulders, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal regarding a motion to stay arbitration. The appellant and the union had an initial agreement stating they would enter into a full-length collective bargaining agreement, which would include arbitration provisions. However, this subsequent agreement was never signed. The union sought arbitration under this unconsummated agreement, leading the defendant (appellant) to file a motion to stay arbitration. The initial order denying this motion was reversed on appeal, with the court granting the motion to stay arbitration. The court found that without a binding collective agreement, there was no effective commitment by the parties to arbitrate.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementContract LawMotion to StayAppellate ReviewLabor DisputeUnconsummated AgreementLack of Arbitration ClauseDenial ReversedCosts and Disbursements
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Employers' Mutual Liability Insurance v. McLellan

This motion, brought by a plaintiff insurance carrier and Flying Tigers, Inc., sought to stay payment to defendant John Johnstone. The payment was awarded by Deputy Commissioner McLellan under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act for the death of James M. Johnstone. Plaintiffs argued that the Deputy Commissioner's findings on dependency and jurisdiction were erroneous and that they would suffer irreparable harm without a stay due to no provision for repayment under the Act. However, the court found the application inadequate, citing insufficient facts, rebutted dependency claims, and legally insufficient assertions of irreparable injury. Consequently, the motion for a stay of payment was denied.

Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActWorkers' CompensationStay of PaymentPreliminary InjunctionIrreparable HarmDependencyJurisdictionCompensation AwardPenalty for Non-PaymentInsurance Carrier
References
8
Case No. ADJ366995
Regular
Jan 31, 2011

MARVIN BRANSCOMB (Deceased), MABLE JEAN BRANSCOMB (Widow) vs. CITY OF COMPTON, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the City of Compton's petition for a stay of a $\$250,000$ death benefit award. The award was for prostate cancer, determined to be work-related for a deceased deputy sheriff. The Board explained that it can effectively stay execution by withholding the certified copy of the award, which is its standard practice during pending appellate review. Therefore, a separate stay order is unnecessary.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for StayFindings and AwardDeath BenefitsPetition for Writ of ReviewReconsiderationCertified Copy of AwardWithholding Certified CopyStay of ExecutionLabor Code § 5808
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Calpine Corp. v. Nevada Power Co. (In Re Calpine Corp.)

Calpine Corporation and its affiliates (Debtors) filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. They sought an extension of the automatic stay to prevent the ongoing "Nevada Litigation" against co-defendant Fireman's Fund Insurance Company (Fireman's) from proceeding. This litigation stemmed from a dispute with Nevada Power Company regarding a Centennial Project bond, for which Fireman's was surety for Calpine's obligations. The Debtors argued that continuing the Nevada Litigation against Fireman's would adversely impact their reorganization efforts due to potential collateral estoppel, indemnification obligations, and distraction of key personnel. The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors and Fireman's moved to intervene, which was granted. The court found that Calpine demonstrated irreparable harm, and the balance of equities favored granting the stay, as Fireman's liability was contingent on Calpine's, and a judgment against Fireman's would effectively be a judgment against the Debtors, impairing their reorganization. The court granted the motion to stay the Nevada Litigation.

BankruptcyAutomatic StayCo-Debtor StaySection 362Section 105ReorganizationIrreparable HarmCollateral EstoppelIndemnificationSurety Bond
References
33
Case No. 04-15739
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 19, 2006

Continental Casualty Co. v. Pfizer, Inc. (In re Quigley Co.)

Plaintiffs Continental Casualty Company and Continental Insurance Company initiated an adversary proceeding against Pfizer, Inc., Quigley Company, Inc. (a debtor-in-possession and Pfizer's subsidiary), and numerous other insurance companies. The plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that certain policies excluded coverage for asbestos-related claims, or alternatively, to reform them and apportion liability. Pfizer and Quigley moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim regarding anticipatory repudiation. A group of defendant insurers (Certain Insurers) sought to stay the proceeding and lift the automatic stay for arbitration. The court denied the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. It stayed Counts One, Two, and Three, and Guildhall's cross-claim, pending the arbitration of coverage disputes, granting the Certain Insurers relief from the automatic stay to commence arbitration. Count Four, concerning anticipatory repudiation, was dismissed without prejudice.

BankruptcyInsurance Coverage DisputeAsbestos LiabilityDeclaratory Judgment ActArbitration AgreementStay of LitigationMotions to DismissAnticipatory RepudiationWellington AgreementPolicy Exclusions
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between J. K. Welding Co. & International Union of Marine & Shipbuilding Workers of America

In a legal proceeding, an appellant sought to obtain a stay of an arbitration. The arbitration concerned the alleged discharge of three employees, a matter that purportedly violated the seniority provisions outlined in a collective bargaining agreement between the appellant and the respondent union. The court affirmed the order that denied the appellant's request for a stay of the arbitration proceedings, and awarded $10 in costs and disbursements.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementSeniority RightsEmployee TerminationStay of ProceedingsLabor DisputeUnion RepresentationAppellate ReviewContract ViolationJudicial Affirmation
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 1995

Smith Barney, Inc. v. Vivian Hause

This case involves an appeal of a Supreme Court judgment concerning an application to stay arbitration. The underlying dispute arose from respondents' investments, which resulted in significant losses and subsequent arbitration claims against the petitioner for unsuitability and misrepresentation. The central legal question addressed by the appellate court was whether the applicability of the NASD Code of Arbitration Procedure's six-year eligibility rule should be determined by the courts or by arbitrators. The appellate court concluded that the broad language of the parties' arbitration agreement, encompassing "any controversy arising out of or relating to any of [respondents’] accounts," superseded a New York choice of law clause's implication for court determination. Consequently, the court reversed the initial judgment, ruling that the arbitrators should decide the eligibility question, and denied the application to stay arbitration.

Arbitration LawNASD ArbitrationFederal Arbitration ActFAAArbitrabilityChoice of Law ClauseNew York LawEligibility RuleInvestment DisputesSecurities Arbitration
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 4,386 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