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

Brendan Van Voris and Josephine Durkin v. Team Chop Shop, LLC D/B/A Chop Shop MMA Jerry Howell

Brendan Van Voris and his wife, Josephine Durkin, appealed a trial court's summary judgment dismissing their negligence and gross negligence claims against Team Chop Shop, LLC d/b/a Chop Shop MMA and Jerry Howell. The claims arose from an injury Van Voris sustained during an aikido course after signing a pre-injury release. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment on the negligence claims, finding the release met fair notice requirements. However, it reversed the summary judgment on the gross negligence claims, stating that pre-injury releases for gross negligence are against public policy and that such claims are not legally inseparable from negligence for the purpose of such a release. The case was remanded for further proceedings concerning the gross negligence claims.

pre-injury releasegross negligencenegligencesummary judgmentpublic policyexemplary damagesfair noticeexpress negligence doctrineconspicuousnessmartial arts injury
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stop & Shop Supermarket Co. v. United Food & Commercial Workers' Union Local 342

Plaintiff Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., LLC ("Stop & Shop") sought a preliminary injunction to prevent Defendant United Food and Commercial Workers’ Union Local 342 ("Local 342" or "the union") from proceeding with an arbitration demand. The arbitration involves Stop & Shop's unilateral implementation of the "LMS system," an electronic system for managing inventory and manpower, which the union alleges violates their collective bargaining agreement (CBA). Stop & Shop argues the arbitration clause in the CBA does not cover the LMS system. The Court asserted jurisdiction under the Labor Management Relations Act. Applying the principles from the "Steelworkers Trilogy," the court found the CBA's arbitration clause to be broad and determined that the union presented colorable arguments that the dispute regarding the LMS system implicates provisions related to "Prior Privileges" and "technological changes" in the CBA, as well as hours and wages. The court concluded that it could not say with "positive assurance" that the arbitration clause is not susceptible to an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute. Consequently, the court denied Stop & Shop's request for a preliminary injunction, allowing the arbitration to proceed.

Labor ArbitrationCollective BargainingPreliminary InjunctionArbitrabilityLabor DisputeLMS SystemUnion RightsEmployer Management RightsFederal CourtStatutory Interpretation
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Peninsula National Bank v. Allen Carpet Shops, Inc. (In Re Allen Carpet Shops, Inc.)

The creditors' committee moved for reargument and reconsideration of a previous court decision that granted summary judgment in favor of Peninsula National Bank (PNB) against Allen Carpet Shops, Inc., the debtor in a Chapter 11 reorganization. PNB sought administrative priority for various payroll account overdrafts. The court reaffirmed the summary judgment for a $19,545.16 portion of PNB's claim and clarified that a $12,684.17 pre-petition overdraft constituted a general unsecured claim. However, the court identified several unanswered material facts concerning a $37,892.92 portion of PNB's claim, which involved checks drawn pre-petition but honored post-petition. Consequently, the court warranted a rehearing specifically on this disputed portion of the claim, effectively granting the committee's motion for reargument in part.

BankruptcyChapter 11 ReorganizationAdversary ProceedingSummary JudgmentReargument MotionAdministrative Expense PriorityWage PriorityDebtor-in-PossessionOverdraftsCreditors' Committee
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Briargrove Shopping Center Joint Venture v. Vilar, Inc.

Briargrove Shopping Center, the appellant, initiated a lawsuit against Vilar, Inc., d/b/a Swedish Auto Repair, alleging a breach of lease terms. Vilar, Inc. filed a cross-claim, asserting that Briargrove's construction of a theatre constituted constructive eviction by significantly reducing parking and access areas. A jury found in favor of Vilar, Inc., determining a material breach of lease and constructive eviction. Briargrove Shopping Center appealed, raising seventeen points of error concerning the submission of special issues, contract interpretation, damages, and attorney's fees. The appellate court, after reviewing the evidence, overruled all points of error and affirmed the lower court's judgment.

Lease disputeConstructive evictionMaterial breachCommercial leaseTenant rightsLandlord dutiesJury issuesAppellate reviewDamagesAttorney's fees
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 1999

Spitzer v. Kings Plaza Shopping Center of Flatbush Avenue, Inc.

The plaintiff, Sara Spitzer, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which granted summary judgment to defendants Kings Plaza Shopping Center of Flatbush Avenue, Inc., and Germonds Properties Corporation. Spitzer had suffered personal injuries from a slip and fall incident at the shopping center, allegedly due to a maintenance worker. The defendants presented evidence that an independent contractor, not their employees, performed the cleaning services. The court found no intrinsic danger in the cleaning activity and no proof of defendant control over the contractor's work. Consequently, the defendants were not held liable for the independent contractor's alleged negligence, and the order dismissing the complaint against them was affirmed.

Personal InjuryPremises LiabilityIndependent ContractorSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewNegligenceSlip and FallProperty Owner LiabilityMaintenance ServicesConcurring Opinion
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Raynor v. MOORES MACHINE SHOP, LLC

Joseph Lynn Raynor was electrocuted while welding on the premises of Moores Machine Shop, LLC. His parents, Jimmy Raynor and Ruby Lewis, individually and as representatives of Joseph’s estate, sued Moores for negligence and gross negligence. Moores moved for summary judgment, asserting claims were barred by the Workers’ Compensation Act (arguing Joseph was an employee) or Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code chapter 95 (arguing Joseph was an independent contractor). The trial court granted summary judgment for Moores. On appeal, the Raynors contended the trial court erred in granting summary judgment. The appellate court found genuine issues of material fact regarding Joseph's employment status, precluding summary judgment under both grounds. The court reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation ActIndependent ContractorEmployee StatusSummary JudgmentNegligenceGross NegligenceWorkplace FatalityElectrocution AccidentRight of Control TestTexas Law
References
13
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 05003
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 20, 2019

Reyes v. Bruckner Plaza Shopping Ctr. LLC

Plaintiff Amilcar Reyes fell from a building roof while installing gravel stops and sued under Labor Law § 240 (1). The Appellate Division, First Department, modified the Supreme Court's order. It granted Reyes's motion for partial summary judgment against Bruckner Plaza Shopping Center LLC and Metro Mechanical, LLC, concluding that no safety devices were provided. However, it dismissed the complaint against Ashkenazy Acquisition Corp., the managing agent, finding it lacked supervisory authority over the worksite. The court also affirmed the denial of summary judgment regarding Western Beef Retail, Inc., stating there was an issue of fact as to its status as an 'owner' or 'agent.'

Labor Law 240(1)Construction AccidentSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityManaging Agent LiabilityOwner LiabilityGeneral Contractor LiabilitySubcontractorFall from HeightSafety Devices
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Highland Park Shopping Village v. Trinity Universal Insurance Co.

This case concerns a dispute over an additional insured endorsement in a general liability policy. Appellants, Henry S. Miller Interests, Inc. and Highland Park Shopping Village, were sued by an employee of Ward Brothers Plumbing Company, James Watkins, for injuries sustained on their premises. Appellants sought defense and indemnification from Trinity Universal Insurance Company, Ward Brothers' insurer, as additional insureds. Trinity refused, arguing the policy only covered liability arising from Ward Brothers' work. The trial court granted Trinity summary judgment on indemnification but granted appellants summary judgment on the duty to defend. Citing similar Texas appellate decisions, the court found Watkins's injury arose out of Ward Brothers' work. The appellate court affirmed the duty to defend and reversed the denial of indemnification, rendering judgment that appellants are entitled to indemnification for the Watkins suit.

Insurance CoverageAdditional Insured EndorsementGeneral Liability PolicyDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyArising Out of WorkEmployee InjuryWorker's CompensationSummary JudgmentAppellate Review
References
2
Case No. NO. 14-10-01242-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 07, 2012

Jimmy Raynor and Ruby Lewis, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Joseph Lynn Raynor v. Moore's MacHine Shop LLC

Joseph Lynn Raynor died from electrocution while welding at Moores Machine Shop. His parents, Jimmy Raynor and Ruby Lewis, sued Moores for negligence and gross negligence, alleging unsafe welding equipment. Moores sought summary judgment, arguing the claims were barred either by the Workers' Compensation Act, claiming Joseph was an employee, or by Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code chapter 95, asserting he was an independent contractor. The trial court granted summary judgment without specifying grounds. On appeal, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, finding genuine issues of material fact existed regarding Joseph's employment status, which precluded summary judgment under both the workers' compensation bar and Chapter 95. The court emphasized that Moores failed to conclusively establish Joseph's employee status.

Workers' CompensationIndependent ContractorEmployee StatusSummary Judgment ReversalNegligenceGross NegligenceWrongful DeathElectrocution AccidentPremises LiabilityRight to Control Test
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lucey v. Golton Marine Co.

Gerard Lucey, an operating engineer, sued Kings Plaza Shopping Center entities for personal injuries. The defendant entities, Kings Plaza Shopping Center of Flatbush Ave., Inc., Kings Plaza Shopping Center of Avenue U, Inc., and Alexander’s of Brooklyn, Inc., moved for summary judgment, arguing they were Lucey's employers and thus immune under Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 11 and 29 (6). The Supreme Court initially denied their motion as premature. On appeal, the higher court reversed the Supreme Court's order, finding that the appellants had established a prima facie case for summary judgment and the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Consequently, the complaint against the appealing defendants was dismissed.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityEmployer-Employee RelationshipAppellate ReviewCorporate LiabilityAssumed Business NameWorkers' Compensation BenefitsDismissal of ComplaintNew York Appellate Division
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 246 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