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

7-Eleven, Inc. v. Combs

7-Eleven, Inc. sued the Comptroller of Public Accounts and the Attorney General of Texas seeking a partial refund of sales tax on financial software. The trial court granted summary judgment to the State, which 7-Eleven appealed. 7-Eleven argued its software transfers to out-of-state franchisees qualified for a sale-for-resale exemption and that software for out-of-state company stores was not subject to Texas use tax. The appellate court reversed the summary judgment for the State and remanded the case, highlighting the applicability of the sale-for-resale exemption to the franchise software and the materiality of the 'use' definition for out-of-state company stores, requiring further factual development.

Sales TaxSoftware LicensingTax ExemptionSale for ResaleData Processing ServicesTangible Personal PropertyUse TaxOut-of-State SalesFranchise StoresCompany Stores
References
34
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 05862 [152 AD3d 806]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 26, 2017

Phillips v. Taco Bell Corp.

The plaintiff, Rachina Phillips, sustained personal injuries after boiling water spilled on her right foot while preparing hot foods within the scope of her employment at a Taco Bell restaurant. She initiated an action against Taco Bell Corp. and Yum! Brands, Inc., alleging negligence. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting that the plaintiff's employer, Taco Bell of America, LLC, was a subsidiary or sister company and that workers' compensation was the exclusive remedy, or that they lacked ownership/control over the premises. The Supreme Court denied this motion. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, determining that the affidavits submitted by the defendants did not qualify as documentary evidence under CPLR 3211 (a)(1) and failed to conclusively establish a defense or refute the plaintiff's factual allegations for both CPLR 3211 (a)(1) and (7).

Personal InjuryNegligenceCPLR 3211(a)(1)CPLR 3211(a)(7)Documentary EvidenceMotion to DismissAppellate ProcedureAlter Ego LiabilityWorkers' Compensation DefensePremises Liability
References
12
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 05725 [221 AD3d 805]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 15, 2023

MJ Lilly Assoc., LLC v. Ovis Creative, LLC

The plaintiff, MJ Lilly Associates, LLC, initiated legal action against Ovis Creative, LLC, alleging violations of the Freelance Isn't Free Act (FIFA). The claims stemmed from the defendant's alleged failure to provide written contracts and to timely pay for freelance work performed by the plaintiff. Ovis Creative, LLC subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the FIFA causes of action, asserting that MJ Lilly Associates, LLC did not qualify as a 'freelance worker' under the Act. The Supreme Court denied this dismissal motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that the defendant's submitted evidence did not meet the criteria for 'documentary evidence' required for dismissal under CPLR 3211 (a)(1) and that the plaintiff had adequately stated a cause of action under CPLR 3211 (a)(7).

Freelance Isn't Free ActFIFAIndependent ContractorMotion to DismissCPLR 3211(a)(1)CPLR 3211(a)(7)Documentary EvidenceContract DisputePayment DisputeNew York City Administrative Code
References
10
Case No. 03-08-00212-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 22, 2010

7-Eleven, Inc. v. Susan Combs, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas, and Greg Abbott, Attorney General of the State of Texas

7-Eleven, Inc. sued the Comptroller of Public Accounts and Attorney General of Texas, seeking a partial refund of sales tax on financial software for its retail stores. The trial court granted the State's motion for summary judgment, which 7-Eleven appealed. 7-Eleven argued it was entitled to recover taxes on software transferred to out-of-state third-party franchisees and out-of-state 7-Eleven-operated stores, claiming exemption via sale-for-resale or non-use in Texas. The appellate court reversed the summary judgment regarding the sale-for-resale exemption for franchise store software and found neither party was entitled to summary judgment on the out-of-state company stores due to unresolved 'use' issues. The case was remanded for further proceedings, including new issues raised by the State on rehearing concerning software license allocation and potential 'divergent use.'

Sales TaxUse TaxTax ExemptionSale for ResaleData Processing ServicesSoftware LicensingSummary JudgmentTexas Tax CodeAppellate ReviewStatutory Construction
References
34
Case No. Motions Nos. 5 and 7
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 27, 1978

Rachlin v. Lewis

This case consolidates two CPLR article 78 proceedings challenging the Insurance Department's regulations on attorneys' fees in no-fault automobile insurance disputes and the constitutionality of certain sections of the Insurance Law. The petitioners sought to rescind 11 NYCRR 65.16 and declare Insurance Law section 671 et seq. unconstitutional. The court ruled that sections 11 NYCRR 65.16 (c) (7) (ix), which prohibited attorneys from charging clients fees in excess of insurer-paid fees, and 11 NYCRR 65.16 (c) (7) (vii), concerning the regulation of disbursements, were invalid as they exceeded the scope of the enabling legislation. However, the court upheld the general fee schedule, finding a rational basis for its establishment by the Insurance Department.

Attorney's FeesNo-Fault InsuranceInsurance LawRegulatory ChallengeCPLR Article 78Administrative LawConstitutional LawDisbursementsArbitrationAutomobile Insurance
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

7-Eleven, Inc. v. Khan

7-Eleven, Inc. filed a complaint against Tariq A. Khan, Senita Khan, Farouq Khan, and Imran M. Khan (the Khans), franchisee-owners and employees of five 7-Eleven stores on Long Island. 7-Eleven alleged that the Defendants diverted profits from 2009 to 2013 in violation of their franchise agreements. Both parties moved for injunctive relief, and United States Magistrate Judge Arlene R. Lindsay recommended granting 7-Eleven’s motion and denying the Khans’ motion. The District Court, presided over by Judge Spatt, reviewed objections to this report. The Court found substantial evidence of fraud, including unrecorded sales, misuse of POS keys, and significant inventory shortages. Consequently, the Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation, granting 7-Eleven's motion for a preliminary injunction and denying the Khans' cross-motion for injunctive relief.

Franchise Agreement DisputePreliminary InjunctionFraudulent TransactionsPOS System MisuseInventory ShortagesTrademark InfringementBreach of ContractDe Novo ReviewMagistrate Judge ReportIrreparable Harm
References
34
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 04711
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 2019

Orellana v. 7 W. 34th St., LLC

Plaintiff Jose Orellana, a worker performing demolition, allegedly sustained injuries after falling from an eight-foot A-frame ladder while cutting an air duct. He initiated legal action against the building owner, 7 West 34th Street, LLC, and the general contractor, W5 Group, LLC, under Labor Law § 240 (1). Both parties sought summary judgment, which the Supreme Court denied, citing the presence of triable issues of fact. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, determining that neither Orellana nor the defendants had demonstrated prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action. The court also clarified that comparative negligence is not a valid defense against the strict liability imposed by Labor Law § 240 (1), reinforcing the finding of unresolved factual disputes.

Ladder AccidentDemolition InjuriesConstruction SafetyLabor Law ViolationSummary Judgment DenialAppellate ReviewStrict LiabilityComparative NegligenceTriable Issues of FactPersonal Injury
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Lowe

This is a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case involving a Trustee's objection to the Debtor's claim of exemption for accrued funds from a General Motors-United Auto Workers profit-sharing plan. The central legal question was whether these funds qualify for exemption under New York's "opt-out" exemption statutes, specifically Debtor and Creditor Law § 282 or CPLR § 5205(c), or as a spendthrift trust under federal bankruptcy law. The Debtor presented six arguments, including claims of express statutory exemption, exclusion from the bankruptcy estate, and a cash exemption, along with arguments based on the de minimis amount and equitable considerations. The Court meticulously analyzed New York's convoluted exemption schema and ultimately rejected each of the Debtor's proposed arguments, emphasizing that exemptions must be statutory and cannot be created by the court. Consequently, the Court sustained the Trustee's objection, ordering the Debtor to turn over the profit-sharing funds to the Trustee.

BankruptcyExemption LawProfit Sharing PlanChapter 7Debtor and Creditor LawSpendthrift TrustERISAStatutory InterpretationTrustee ObjectionNew York Exemption Law
References
8
Case No. 02-11-00047-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 2012

Jim Chambers, Mary Ann Chambers, and Mark Weisbart, Chapter 7 Trustee v. First United Bank & Trust Company

Jim Chambers, Mary Ann Chambers, and Mark Weisbart, a Chapter 7 Trustee, appealed the trial court’s judgment concerning home equity loans from First United Bank & Trust Company. The appellants challenged the trial court’s directed verdict on their breach of fiduciary duty claim and the Bank’s foreclosure order, and further argued against the jury’s findings on damages and the 2004 loan payoff amount, as well as the award of attorney’s fees to the Bank. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that no informal fiduciary duty existed, the Bank properly secured an order of foreclosure, and the jury’s determinations on damages and loan payoff were supported by sufficient evidence. The court also found the award of attorney's fees to the Bank to be equitable and just under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act.

Home Equity LoanForeclosureBreach of Fiduciary DutyDirected VerdictAppellate ReviewLegal SufficiencyFactual SufficiencyDamagesAttorney's FeesUniform Declaratory Judgments Act
References
47
Case No. 03-11-00069-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 2011

Lawrence Black v. Franklin Service Stations, Inc., D/B/A J & J Towing And 7-Eleven Convenience Stores

This case involves Lawrence Black's appeal after his truck was towed from a 7-Eleven parking lot. Black's fiancé, Althea Zuniga, the registered owner, initially won an unlawful towing claim in justice court, but the county court at law ruled in favor of the appellees. Black attempted to intervene and appeal nearly two months after the county court's final judgment, which had also denied Zuniga's motion for new trial. The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, dismissed Black's appeal for want of jurisdiction. The court held that Black's post-judgment attempt to intervene was barred as a matter of law, and he did not qualify under the 'virtual representation' doctrine, thus lacking standing to bring the appeal.

StandingInterventionFinal JudgmentAppellate JurisdictionVirtual RepresentationMotion to DismissTowing DisputeTrial Court JudgmentPost-judgment MotionsTexas Court of Appeals
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 1,999 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