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

Craftmatic Comfort Manufacturing Corp. v. New York State Tax Commission

Petitioner, a Pennsylvania corporation selling adjustable beds, challenged a sales and use tax assessment for the period of March 1978 to February 1981. The corporation argued that sales of its beds, when prescribed by a physician, should be exempt as medical equipment under Tax Law § 1115 (a) (3). The respondent's determination disallowed this exemption, claiming the beds were not primarily used for medical purposes. The court, however, found the respondent's decision lacked substantial evidence, citing approvals from the Workers’ Compensation Board, Medicare, and the FDA, all of which classified the beds as medical devices or hospital beds. Consequently, the court annulled the portion of the determination denying the exemption for prescription sales and remitted the case for further proceedings.

Sales TaxUse TaxMedical Equipment ExemptionHospital BedsPhysician's PrescriptionSubstantial EvidenceTax LawCPLR Article 78Administrative ReviewTax Assessment
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sodexho Management, Inc. v. Johnson

This case addresses whether Sodexho Management, Inc. (Sodexho) was an agent or an independent contractor in its food service operations for tax-exempt David Lipscomb University. The Commissioner of Revenue assessed a 'contractor’s use tax' against Sodexho for its use of the university's property and utilities. The pivotal issue was Sodexho's relationship with the university, as an agent would share the university's tax-exempt status. The appellate court reversed the Chancellor's final decision, concluding that Sodexho failed to prove an agency relationship. The court found that Sodexho operated as an independent contractor, retaining profits and controlling the means and methods of its operations, and is therefore liable for the use tax.

Contractor's Use TaxAgency RelationshipIndependent ContractorTax ExemptionFood Service ManagementDavid Lipscomb UniversitySodexho ManagementBurden of ProofRight to ControlMeans and Manner
References
15
Case No. M2003-00660-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 08, 2004

Sodexho Management, Inc. v. Ruth E. Johnson

This case concerns an appeal regarding the assessment of a 'contractor’s use tax' against Sodexho Management, Inc., for its food service operations at the tax-exempt David Lipscomb University. The central issue was whether Sodexho functioned as an agent of the university or as an independent contractor, as this distinction determined its liability for the use tax on the university's property and utilities it utilized. The Court of Appeals reversed the Chancery Court's decision, finding that Sodexho failed to meet its burden of proof to establish an agency relationship. The appellate court concluded that the agreement and control exercised by the university were results-oriented, not over the means and methods of Sodexho's operations, thereby making Sodexho an independent contractor liable for the use tax. The matter was remanded for further proceedings.

Use taxContractor's use taxAgency relationshipIndependent contractorTax exemptionFood service managementTennessee tax lawBurden of proofAppellate reviewControl test
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pochter v. State Tax Commission

The case concerns Leonard Pochter, an outside commission salesman, challenging a State Tax Commission determination classifying him as an independent contractor, thus subjecting him to unincorporated business tax for 1966-1972. Pochter contended he was an employee of two wholesale apparel firms, which would exempt him from the tax. Despite some company restrictions and requirements, the Commission found a lack of substantial control over his sales methods. The court affirmed the Commission's decision, citing insufficient evidence of employer supervision to establish an employee relationship, thereby dismissing Pochter's petition.

unincorporated business taxindependent contractor statusemployee statuscommission salesmantax assessmentCPLR Article 78State Tax Commissionapparel industryemployer control testtax law interpretation
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cohen v. Chu

This CPLR article 78 proceeding involved a petitioner, an insurance agent, challenging a determination by the State Tax Commission that he was liable for unincorporated business taxes for 1979 and 1980. The central issue was whether the petitioner functioned as an employee or an independent contractor for Provident Mutual Life Insurance Company. The court considered various factors, including the contract, company-provided resources, benefits, and the petitioner's ability to broker insurance with other companies. The decision emphasized the petitioner's ability to earn a significant portion of his income from other companies as substantial evidence supporting the determination that he was an independent contractor. Consequently, the court confirmed the determination of the State Tax Commission and dismissed the petition.

Independent ContractorTax AssessmentUnincorporated Business TaxInsurance AgentEmployer-Employee RelationshipState Tax CommissionJudicial ReviewSubstantial EvidenceProvident Mutual Life Insurance CompanyTax Law
References
6
Case No. CV-24-1494
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 15, 2026

Matter of Beeline.Com, Inc. v. State of N.Y. Tax Appeals Trib.

Petitioner, Beeline.Com, Inc., a Florida company, initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge a determination by the New York Tax Appeals Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld a sales tax assessment imposed by the Department of Taxation and Finance on Beeline.Com's vendor management system (VMS), deeming it a sale of licenses to use prewritten computer software under Tax Law article 28. Beeline.Com argued it primarily provided nontaxable services and its software was customized, not prewritten. The Appellate Division, Third Department, confirmed the Tribunal's determination, finding that the VMS license constituted a sale of tangible personal property, was prewritten software despite minor reconfigurations, and was the core element of Beeline.Com's transactions, not incidental to services.

Sales TaxComputer Software LicensePrewritten SoftwareTax Appeals TribunalCPLR Article 78Vendor Management System (VMS)Tangible Personal PropertyTrue Object TestPrimary Function TestTax Law Article 28
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Menin v. Tully

The petitioner, an estate planner and life insurance agent, sought to review a State Tax Commission determination sustaining a deficiency assessment for unincorporated business taxes for various years between 1964 and 1974. The respondent concluded that the petitioner was an independent contractor rather than an employee. Petitioner worked under an agent’s career contract for New England Life Insurance Company and its general agent, but also sold insurance for other principals and operated with considerable independence, including maintaining his own office and incurring substantial business expenses. The court affirmed the determination, finding substantial evidence to support the conclusion that the petitioner was an independent contractor and therefore subject to the unincorporated business tax.

unincorporated business taxindependent contractorinsurance agentState Tax Commissiontax assessmentCPLR Article 78employer controlbusiness expensestax deficiencyappellate review
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ormsby Haulers, Inc. v. Tully

The case involves Ormsby Haulers, Inc., Kenneth Ormsby, and Raymond Ormsby challenging a sales and use tax assessment imposed by the State Tax Commission. The Sales Tax Bureau determined that the use of the Ormsby brothers’ personally owned tractors for corporate purposes constituted a taxable rental to the corporation. Petitioners argued that possession of the tractors was not transferred, as each vehicle remained under the individual owner's complete control. However, the commission's construction of 'rental' was deemed reasonable, and the court found a rational basis to conclude that a 'transfer of possession' took place due to the brothers' integral roles and the tractors' use for corporate purposes. Consequently, the determination to uphold the sales tax assessment was confirmed, and the petition dismissed.

Sales Tax AssessmentUse TaxCorporate StructureTractor RentalConstructive PossessionTax Law InterpretationArticle 78 ProceedingJudicial Review of Agency DeterminationBusiness Entity TaxationTransfer of Possession
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Interstate Mechanical Contractors, Inc. v. McIntosh

Billy McIntosh sustained a severe hand injury while operating a power roller machine at Interstate Mechanical Contractors, Inc. He subsequently tested positive for marijuana, triggering a statutory presumption under Tennessee's Drug-Free Workplace Act that his drug use proximately caused the injury. The trial court, however, found that McIntosh successfully rebutted this presumption, concluding that the injury was proximately caused by an inexperienced coworker engaging the machine, not McIntosh's impaired reaction time. Interstate Mechanical Contractors, Inc. appealed this decision, arguing the trial court erred in its application of the statutory presumption and causation. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the finding that McIntosh had successfully rebutted the presumption.

References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Houston Contractors Ass'n v. METRO. TRANSIT AUTH. OF HARRIS CTY.

The Houston Contractors Association challenged the Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County's (Metro) Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program. Metro's program mandated quotas for minority and female subcontractor participation, presuming social and economic disadvantage based on race and sex. The court found that Metro's use of racial and sexual classifications in its contracting program violated the American Constitution's equal protection clause by imposing arbitrary distinctions. The judge rejected Metro's justifications, including correcting historical wrongs and lowering costs, stating that the solution to racism is not more racism. The court granted judgment to the contractors, prohibiting Metro from implementing race, ethnicity, or sex-based contracting preferences.

Affirmative ActionRacial PreferencesEqual Protection ClauseGovernment ContractingDisadvantaged Business EnterpriseQuotasRacial DiscriminationSexual DiscriminationConstitutional LawSummary Judgment
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 5,033 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