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. M2002-00728-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 2002

Betty Brown v. Melvin Brown

Betty R. Brown divorced Melvin E. Brown after twenty-five years, with the trial court awarding her alimony. Eight years later, Melvin petitioned to terminate his alimony obligation, citing Betty's increased earnings. The trial court denied this petition, finding Betty still economically disadvantaged and retaining her alimony as a "safety net," also ordering Melvin to cover her attorney fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision. It ruled that a material change in circumstances must be unforeseeable and that despite Betty earning more than Melvin, she still faced a relative economic disadvantage due to ongoing mortgage payments and past financial struggles.

DivorceAlimonyModification PetitionChange in CircumstancesEconomic DisadvantageSpousal SupportForeseeabilityAbility to PayNeedAttorney Fees
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 24, 2007

Rothe Development Corp. v. U.S. Department of Defense

Rothe Development Corporation challenged the constitutionality of the Section 1207 Program, which provides preferences for socially and economically disadvantaged businesses (SDBs) in defense contracts. The plaintiff, a non-SDB, lost a contract due to the program's price evaluation adjustment. This order addresses the facial constitutionality of the 2006 reauthorization. The Court found that Congress had a compelling interest in reauthorizing the program to remedy widespread discrimination in contracting, supported by extensive statistical and anecdotal evidence from various disparity studies and Congressional reports. Furthermore, the Court concluded that the 2006 reauthorization, with its amended regulations requiring individualized economic disadvantage showings and rebuttable presumptions, is narrowly tailored. Consequently, the defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted, the plaintiff's motion is denied, and claims regarding earlier reauthorizations are dismissed as moot.

Affirmative ActionStrict ScrutinyRacial DiscriminationGovernment ContractsSmall Business Programs1207 ProgramSocially Disadvantaged BusinessesEqual ProtectionFifth AmendmentNational Defense Authorization Act
References
75
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hyde v. North River Insurance

This case examines whether an insurance carrier, having paid no-fault benefits, can assert a lien against a judgment recovered by its insured for pain, suffering, and future economic loss. The plaintiff, an injured insured, received $50,000 in no-fault benefits from North River Insurance Company. In a subsequent tort action against the County of Rensselaer, the plaintiff secured a $1,000,000 verdict. The insurance company filed a lien against this judgment. The Special Term and appellate courts affirmed that the lien was invalid because the jury's verdict explicitly excluded basic economic loss, thereby preventing a double recovery. The decision clarifies that liens are only enforceable against recoveries that duplicate previously paid basic economic losses.

No-Fault BenefitsInsurance LienSummary Judgment AppealPersonal Injury CompensationBasic Economic LossNon-Economic LossPain and Suffering DamagesDouble Recovery PreventionStatutory LienAutomobile Accident
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Normile v. Allstate Insurance

Chief Judge Cooke's dissenting opinion critiques the majority's interpretation of Insurance Law section 671 (subd 2, par [b]) regarding how collateral source payments affect an insurer's aggregate $50,000 liability for basic economic loss. The dissent argues that the majority's method, which allows insurers to reduce their total liability by these payments, leads to an incomplete recovery for injured parties, particularly when total losses exceed $50,000. Cooke proposes an alternative allocation where collateral source payments are first applied to cover losses beyond the $50,000 basic economic loss threshold. This approach, he contends, ensures that insurers pay the full $50,000 in first-party benefits and only take credit for collateral sources that would otherwise result in a double recovery within the basic economic loss limit, or for amounts exceeding the $50,000 threshold. The dissenting judge asserts that the Legislature did not intend to create such an inequity, where injured individuals are left with less than full compensation while insurers avoid their primary obligation.

Insurance Law InterpretationBasic Economic LossCollateral Source PaymentsNo-Fault InsuranceWorkers' Compensation BenefitsSocial Security Disability BenefitsDissenting OpinionAggregate LiabilityFirst-Party BenefitsDouble Recovery
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

L.I. Head Start Child Development Services, Inc. v. Economic Opportunity Commission of Nassau County, Inc.

This case, a "MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER," addresses a class action brought by L.I. Head Start Child Development Services, Inc. and Paul Adams against Community Action Agencies Insurance Group (CAAIG), the Economic Opportunity Commission of Nassau County, Inc. (EOC Nassau), the Economic Opportunity Council of Suffolk County, Inc. (EOC Suffolk), Yonkers Community Action Program, Inc. (Yonkers CAP), and the Estate of John L. Kearse. The plaintiffs alleged various breaches of fiduciary duty under ERISA, including the diversion of reserves, failure to adequately fund the plan, failure to collect delinquent contributions, and unjust enrichment. The court found in favor of the defendants on the claims of reserve diversion and unjust enrichment. However, the defendants were found liable for failing to adequately fund the CAAIG Plan, with damages to be determined in a future hearing, and EOC Nassau, Yonkers CAP, and Kearse's Estate were held liable for $9,000 plus interest for failing to collect delinquent contributions from EOC Suffolk.

ERISA Fiduciary DutyEmployee Benefit PlanDelinquent ContributionsUnjust EnrichmentCo-Fiduciary LiabilityTrust Agreement AmendmentsPlan ReservesClass Action LawsuitEastern District CourtPension and Welfare Funds
References
36
Case No. E2010-01255-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 28, 2011

Carol Denice Pettijohn v. Patrick Carl Pettijohn

This is an appeal from a divorce case where the Husband challenged the trial court's division of marital property and alimony awards. The Wife, who was economically disadvantaged and had health issues, was granted alimony in solido (Husband's share of the marital home) and alimony in futuro. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding the property division equitable and the alimony awards appropriate given the parties' economic circumstances, health, and contributions to the marriage, consistent with relevant Tennessee statutes and case law.

DivorceMarital Property DivisionAlimony in SolidoAlimony in FuturoEconomic DisadvantageEquitable DistributionAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionHealth ConditionsChild Support
References
24
Case No. 01A01-9806-CH-00339
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 29, 1999

Hulshof v. Hulshof

This case is an appeal from a divorce action initiated by Henry Lee Hulshof against Dorothy Ann Hulshof concerning property distribution and alimony. The Chancery Court granted the wife a divorce, divided property, and awarded rehabilitative alimony, which the wife appealed as insufficient given her disabilities and economic disadvantage. The Court of Appeals affirmed the property division for assets existing at separation but modified the alimony to periodic and remanded for reconsideration of marital property, particularly the residence and retirement accounts, along with the husband's pre-filing asset dissipation. The court found rehabilitation for the wife not feasible and highlighted the economic disparity between the parties.

DivorceAlimonyMarital Property DistributionRehabilitative AlimonyPeriodic AlimonyEconomic DisparityDissipation of AssetsAppellate ReviewDisability BenefitsSpousal Support
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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Lottery Commission v. Scientific Games International, Inc.

Scientific Games International, Inc. (SGI) and Pollard Banknote Limited, out-of-state lottery ticket manufacturers, sued the Texas Lottery Commission after its Executive Director announced a new policy in February 2002. This policy intended to consider a vendor’s anticipated economic impact on the state for contracts exceeding $100,000, potentially disadvantaging non-Texas companies. The plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment, arguing the Commission lacked statutory authority for this new policy, which they contended would unfairly favor in-state bidders. The trial court sided with SGI and Pollard, granting summary judgment in their favor. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment, ruling that the Texas Lottery Commission must adhere to competitive-bidding statutes and base procurement decisions primarily on quality and price, as it lacks explicit statutory authority to consider a vendor's economic impact on the state. The court concluded that such a policy would contradict the mandate to promote competition and would create an impermissible in-state preference.

Procurement PolicyEconomic ImpactGovernment ContractsDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentStatutory InterpretationAdministrative Agency AuthorityCompetitive BiddingIn-state PreferenceLottery Commission
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MEDICAL ECONOMICS CO. v. Prescribing Reference, Inc.

This memorandum opinion and order addresses Prescribing Reference Incorporated's (PRI) motion for a preliminary injunction against Medical Economics Company and ME Licensing Corporation (MEC). PRI sought to prevent MEC from using the title 'PDR Monthly Prescribing Guide,' alleging trademark infringement and irreparable harm. The Court denied PRI's motion, concluding that PRI did not adequately demonstrate a likelihood of irreparable harm, noting the lack of concrete evidence for shifting advertising revenue or actual consumer confusion. Furthermore, the Court assessed PRI's likelihood of success on the merits of its trademark infringement claim as weak, considering the descriptive nature of PRI's mark, MEC's use of its well-known 'PDR' house mark, and the sophistication of the target audience, medical professionals.

Preliminary InjunctionTrademark InfringementIrreparable HarmLikelihood of ConfusionDescriptive TrademarksHouse MarksConsumer SophisticationHealthcare PublicationsTrademark StrengthInjunctive Relief
References
27
Showing 1-10 of 439 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