Search 142,000+ federal and state court decisions on employment law — updated daily from public court records.
142,000+
Total Rulings
1964
Earliest Filing
2026
Most Recent
Daily
Update Frequency
This database contains 142,000+ federal and state court rulings related to employment law, spanning from 1964 to present. Every ruling includes the case name, filing date, court, docket number, and — where available — the outcome, damages awarded, employer involved, and specific claims raised.
You can search by keyword, filter by federal statute (Title VII, ADA, FMLA, FLSA, and more), narrow by date range, and click into any ruling for the full details and related cases. Each ruling links to the original source on CourtListener for verification.
This appeal arises from a motion filed by Brian Coblentz ("Employee") to compel Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. ("Employer") to provide medical treatment under the terms of a consent order previously entered by the trial court. Following a hearing, the trial court denied Employee's motion. Employee has appealed, and the appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51. We affirm the judgment.
The plaintiffs, who own real property in the city of Shelton, appealed to the trial court from the decision of the defendant planning and zoning commission approving an application for a planned development district submitted by the defendant S Co. The trial court dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal from the commission's decision, and the plaintiffs appealed, claiming, inter alia, that this court's decision in Campion v. Board of Alderman (278 Conn. 500), in which the court concluded that a special act of the legislature authorizing zoning in the city of New Haven allowed for the creation of a planned development district, did not authorize municipalities, such as Shelton, that derive their authority to zone by statute (§ 8-2), rather than by a special act, to establish such districts. Held: 1. The plaintiffs could not prevail on their claim that the zoning authority conferred by § 8-2 did not support the creation of planned development districts: a comparison of the language in the special act at issue in Campion, the language of the enabling act at issue in Sheridan v. Planning Board (159 Conn. 1), and the language of § 8-2, which allowed the defendant commission to create and alter zones, led this court to conclude that § 8-2 permits the creation of planned development districts like the one at issue in the present case; moreover, the legislature's prior repeal of legislation that provided for a detailed procedure for the approval of planned developments did not evince a legislative intent to eliminate or severely limit the use of planned developments, as that legislation was repealed because its provisions were largely viewed as unnecessary and unduly burdensome, and the legislature's enactment of a statute (§ 8-2m) expressly allowing for the use of flexible zoning techniques was not intended to preclude the generalized application of § 8-2 or to restrict the zoning devices that it allows; furthermore, there was no indication that the development in the present cas
The plaintiffs, who own real property in the city of Shelton, appealed to the trial court from the decision of the defendant planning and zoning commission approving an application for a planned development district submitted by the defendant S Co. The trial court dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal from the commission's decision, and the plaintiffs appealed, claiming, inter alia, that this court's decision in Campion v. Board of Alderman (278 Conn. 500), in which the court concluded that a special act of the legislature authorizing zoning in the city of New Haven allowed for the creation of a planned development district, did not authorize municipalities, such as Shelton, that derive their authority to zone by statute (§ 8-2), rather than by a special act, to establish such districts. Held: 1. The plaintiffs could not prevail on their claim that the zoning authority conferred by § 8-2 did not support the creation of planned development districts: a comparison of the language in the special act at issue in Campion, the language of the enabling act at issue in Sheridan v. Planning Board (159 Conn. 1), and the language of § 8-2, which allowed the defendant commission to create and alter zones, led this court to conclude that § 8-2 permits the creation of planned development districts like the one at issue in the present case; moreover, the legislature's prior repeal of legislation that provided for a detailed procedure for the approval of planned developments did not evince a legislative intent to eliminate or severely limit the use of planned developments, as that legislation was repealed because its provisions were largely viewed as unnecessary and unduly burdensome, and the legislature's enactment of a statute (§ 8-2m) expressly allowing for the use of flexible zoning techniques was not intended to preclude the generalized application of § 8-2 or to restrict the zoning devices that it allows; furthermore, there was no indication that the development in the present cas
dismissal of career state employee with just cause, substantial evidence in the whole record supported administrative law judge's findings.
Page 585 of 980 · 48,993 rulings
--- rulings
This database indexes 142,000+ employment law court rulings from federal district courts, circuit courts of appeals, and state courts across the United States. Cases cover the full spectrum of employment law claims, including Title VII discrimination, ADA accommodation disputes, FMLA retaliation, FLSA wage and hour violations, wrongful termination, whistleblower protections, and more.
All rulings are sourced from CourtListener, a project of the Free Law Project (501(c)(3) nonprofit). We ingest new rulings daily through automated feeds, then classify each ruling by employment law statute, claim type, outcome, and employer using a combination of keyword matching and AI-assisted extraction.
Use the search and filters above to find rulings relevant to your situation. You can search by case name, employer, or keyword, then filter by statute and date range. Click any ruling to see the full details, including outcome, damages, related laws, and similar cases. If you find a ruling involving your employer, visit their employer profile to see their full complaint history.
This information is provided for educational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Court rulings are public records. Consult a licensed attorney for advice specific to your situation.