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

Parrish v. Premier Directional Drilling, L.P.

This case involves a collective-action lawsuit filed by William Parrish and other plaintiffs against Premier Directional Drilling, L.P., alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) due to misclassification as independent contractors rather than employees. The core issue was whether the plaintiffs, who worked as Directional Drillers Consultants (DDs) and Measurement While Drilling Consultants (MWDs), were employees or independent contractors under the FLSA's economic reality test. The Court analyzed five factors: degree of control, relative investments, opportunity for profit and loss, skill and initiative, and permanency of the relationship. Ultimately, the Court found that the plaintiffs were employees, concluding that Premier exerted significant control over their work and compensation, and their investments in the job were substantially less than Premier's. Consequently, the Court denied Premier's motion for summary judgment, granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, and awarded the plaintiffs $363,422.00 in compensatory and liquidated damages.

Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)Employment MisclassificationIndependent Contractor StatusEmployee StatusSummary JudgmentOvertime CompensationBack WagesLiquidated DamagesEconomic Reality TestOil and Gas Industry
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Teitelbaum

This case addresses defendants', who are police officers, motion to set aside a verdict of guilty for bribe receiving and official misconduct. The motion was based on alleged improper conduct by Juror No. 3, Lillian Feeley, who did not disclose her volunteer affiliation with the Queens County District Attorney's office during jury selection. A post-trial hearing revealed that Feeley was a volunteer court watcher for a public relations program, had no contact with legal staff, and exhibited no pro-prosecutorial bias. The court found that Feeley did not intentionally withhold information and that her association was too remote to the prosecution by a special State prosecutor to constitute bias. Consequently, the court denied the motion for a new trial, determining that any irregularity was harmless and did not impact the verdict.

Juror MisconductVoir DireFair TrialImpartial JuryVerdict NullificationCPL 330.30District Attorney AffiliationCourt Watcher ProgramActual BiasPrejudice
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Williams-Sonoma Direct, Inc. v. Arhaus, LLC

This case involves a dispute where Plaintiffs Williams-Sonoma Direct, Inc. (WSDI) and Williams-Sonoma Retail Services, Inc. (WSRSI) sued Defendants Timothy Stover and Arhaus, LLC. The plaintiffs alleged violations of the Tennessee Uniform Trade Secrets Act (TUTSA), breach of contract, breach of the duty of loyalty, and tortious interference with contract. The defendants filed motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) and (7) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction due to the alleged indispensable party status of Williams-Sonoma, Inc. (WSI) and improper creation of diversity jurisdiction. The Court denied in part the defendants' motions, finding that WSDI and WSRSI are real parties in interest and WSI is not an indispensable party, and no improper or collusive creation of jurisdiction occurred.

Trade SecretsBreach of ContractDuty of LoyaltyTortious InterferenceMotion to DismissSummary JudgmentSubject Matter JurisdictionDiversity JurisdictionIndispensable PartyRule 12(b)(1)
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bugge v. Sweet

Plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court in Otsego County which set aside a jury verdict in his favor for $10,000 and directed a verdict for the defendant. The case stemmed from a 1975 motor vehicle accident, with the central legal question being whether the plaintiff sustained a "serious injury" as defined by Insurance Law § 671(4) at the time. The appellate court reviewed the medical evidence presented, specifically the testimony of the plaintiff's doctor. The court found the doctor's testimony regarding the permanency and causal link of the injury to the accident to be burdened with doubt, speculation, and inconsistency. Consequently, the appellate court determined that the plaintiff failed, as a matter of law, to establish the "serious injury" threshold required for recovery. Therefore, the order and judgment in favor of the defendant were affirmed.

Motor Vehicle AccidentPersonal InjurySerious Injury ThresholdInsurance LawSpinal FusionLumbo-sacral StrainCausationPermanencyMedical Expert TestimonyAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Atlantic Mutual Insurance Co. v. Middleman

This opinion addresses an appeal from a judgment favoring appellee Dorothy Middleman, which set aside a worker's compensation settlement. The appellant challenged the trial court's judgment on various grounds, including the admission of evidence and the sufficiency of evidence to support the jury's findings that Joseph Middleman sustained an employment-related injury causing his death. The court affirmed the judgment, finding ample direct and circumstantial evidence corroborated the injury and its relation to Middleman's death. It also found no reversible error in the trial court's rulings on evidence admissibility, jury instructions, or motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

Worker's CompensationHearsayRes GestaeCircumstantial EvidenceSufficiency of EvidencePoints of ErrorJury VerdictDirected VerdictJudgment Notwithstanding the VerdictHematoma
References
25
Case No. 03-02-00030-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 2003

Qwest Communications International, Inc. Qwest Communications Corporation And SP Construction Services, Inc./ AT&T Corp. AT&T Communications of the Southwest, Inc. CK Directional Drilling v. AT&T Corp. AT&T Communications of the Southwest, Inc./Qwest Communications International Inc. Qwest Communications Corporation SP Construction Services, Inc. C&S Directional Boring Company, Inc. CK Directional Drilling

This case involves an appeal from a judgment awarding economic and exemplary damages to AT&T for fiber-optic cable damage caused by Qwest and its subcontractors, CK Directional Drilling and C&S Directional Boring Company, Inc. The core dispute arose from three instances in 1997 where AT&T's cables were severed during Qwest's fiber-optic network construction. Qwest, CK, and AT&T all appealed the district court's final judgment, challenging various aspects, including malice findings, the validity of a Rule 11 agreement, damage calculations, and vicarious liability. The appellate court affirmed the findings of malice against Qwest and C&S, and Qwest's liability for its subcontractors' actions. However, it reversed the breach-of-contract damages awarded to AT&T due to insufficient evidence and upheld the district court's calculation of exemplary damages and prejudgment interest.

Fiber-optic cable damageTelecommunications infrastructureSubcontractor liabilityExemplary damagesMaliceRule 11 agreementBreach of contractPrejudgment interestAppellate reviewVicarious liability
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dominguez v. Fixrammer Corp.

Plaintiff Hippolito Dominguez sued to recover for injuries sustained while operating a power stud gun for his employer, Creative Structures, Inc., which resulted in the loss of a testicle. The jury awarded $800,000, apportioning liability: 25% to Creative Structures, 40% to the manufacturer Fixrammer Corporation, and 35% to the distributor Barnett Lighting Corporation. The employer settled for $310,000, and the manufacturer dissolved before trial. The plaintiff moved to increase Barnett Lighting Corporation's liability, arguing an inability to enforce judgment against the dissolved manufacturer. The court denied this motion, applying CPLR 1601 and General Obligations Law § 15-108 to limit the distributor's liability for noneconomic damages to its equitable share. The court also denied plaintiff's motion to increase the award for future pain and suffering and the distributor's cross-motion to set aside the verdict. Final judgments were entered against Barnett Lighting Corporation for $308,952 and against Fixrammer Corporation for $343,435.

Joint TortfeasorsLimited LiabilityEquitable ShareSettlement SetoffNoneconomic DamagesEconomic DamagesVerdict RestructuringPost-Trial MotionProduct LiabilityPersonal Injury
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carpenter v. Albee

Plaintiff Gary D. Carpenter, a blacktop paver, sustained serious injuries when he was struck and dragged by a dump truck driven by defendant Bruce W. Albee while working on Interstate Route 88. Carpenter and his wife commenced a personal injury action against Albee and his employer. A jury trial resulted in a verdict finding no negligence on the part of the defendants. Plaintiffs' motions to set aside the verdict and for a new trial were denied. The plaintiffs appealed, arguing that the jury's finding of no negligence was against the weight of the evidence. The appellate court disagreed, finding that there was conflicting evidence that the jury could fairly interpret in the defendant's favor, and affirmed the lower court's judgment and order.

Personal InjuryNegligenceJury VerdictAppellate ReviewWeight of EvidenceAutomobile AccidentWorkplace AccidentConflicting TestimonyCredibility IssuesAffirmed Judgment
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 23, 1968

Weeks v. Beardsley

Raymond H. Weeks, an employee of joint venture contractors, died on October 30, 1964, after being struck by an automobile operated by Beverly J. Beardsley. The plaintiff appealed a Supreme Court judgment in favor of the defendants, which resulted from a jury verdict of no cause of action, and an order denying the plaintiff’s motion to set aside that verdict. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the jury's findings regarding the decedent's contributory negligence and the defendant operator's freedom from negligence were supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence, and therefore, the verdict was not palpably wrong.

Wrongful DeathAutomobile AccidentContributory NegligenceJury VerdictAppellate ReviewEvidence SufficiencyNegligenceMotion to Set Aside VerdictTrial TermAffirmed Judgment
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kaczor v. City of Buffalo

Walter Kaczor, a retired Buffalo Police Officer, sued the City of Buffalo and its officers for age discrimination under the ADEA and New York State Human Rights Law, alleging he was not reinstated due to his age. A jury found the defendants willfully discriminated against Kaczor. Defendants filed post-trial motions challenging the sufficiency of evidence, jurisdictional issues, and damages computation. The court denied defendants' motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on liability and willfulness, finding ample evidence to support the jury's findings, including direct evidence of age discrimination. The court also denied motions to dismiss Kaczor's ADEA and pendent state law claims, confirming jurisdiction despite complex interplays between federal and state filing requirements. Issues related to the excessiveness of damages were referred to a Magistrate for settlement negotiations.

Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)New York State Human Rights LawPost-Trial MotionsWillful DiscriminationJudgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (JNOV)Procedural RequirementsJurisdictional IssuesElection of RemediesDamagesEmotional Distress
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 16,246 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