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. 1
Regular Panel Decision

Healthpoint, Ltd. v. Stratus Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

The lawsuit involves Healthpoint Ltd. and Stratus Corporation concerning competing enzymatic wound ointments, Aceuzyme/Panafil (Healthpoint) and Kovia/Ziox (Stratus). Healthpoint alleged false advertising, unfair competition, dilution, and palming off by Stratus, claiming Stratus misrepresented its products as 'generic' or 'bioequivalent' to Healthpoint's. Stratus counterclaimed with similar allegations of false advertising against Healthpoint. The court addressed the primary jurisdiction of the FDA regarding drug classification and labeling, deferring misbranding claims to the FDA. Ultimately, the court granted Healthpoint's motion for a preliminary injunction in part, enjoining Stratus from making specific false or misleading claims about its products' equivalence, and denied Stratus' cross-motion.

False AdvertisingUnfair CompetitionLanham ActPreliminary InjunctionDrug MarketingBioequivalenceGeneric DrugsFDA RegulationWound CarePharmaceutical Law
References
72
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Houston Lighting & Power Co. v. Eller Outdoor Advertising Co.

This case addresses whether a party entitled to indemnification for damages to an injured employee can recover indemnity under the Public Utilities Act from an employer covered by the Workers’ Compensation statute. Tommy Eugene Miller, an employee of Eller Outdoor Advertising, was electrocuted by a power line owned by Houston Lighting & Power Company (HL&P). Miller's family received workers' compensation benefits from Eller and later settled a wrongful death action against HL&P. HL&P then sued Eller for indemnification, arguing Eller violated the Public Utilities Act. The trial court ruled that the Workers' Compensation Statute precluded HL&P's suit. However, the appellate court reversed, holding that the specific indemnification provision of the later-enacted Public Utilities Act should control over the more general Workers' Compensation Act, allowing for harmonization of the statutes. The case was remanded to determine the merits of HL&P's indemnification claim.

IndemnificationPublic Utilities ActWorkers' CompensationStatutory InterpretationHigh Voltage LinesElectrocutionWrongful DeathExclusive RemedyThird-Party LiabilitySummary Judgment
References
10
Case No. 13-ev-3288; 13-cv-4244
Regular Panel Decision

Alzheimer's Disease Resource Center, Inc. v. Alzheimer's Disease & Related Disorders Ass'n

This case involves two related lawsuits stemming from the disaffiliation of the Alzheimer’s Disease Resource Center, Inc. (ADRC) from the Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Disorders Association (the Association). In case 13-ev-3288, ADRC alleged unfair competition, false advertising, and other claims. The Court denied dismissal for false advertising under the Lanham Act, New York General Business Law § 349, and unjust enrichment, but granted dismissal for trademark infringement, common law unfair competition, UCC violations, conversion, tortious interference, and fraud. In case 13-cv-4244, ADRC alleged breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets related to donor lists. The Court granted the Association's motion to dismiss this complaint in its entirety. Punitive damages were stricken for Lanham Act and unjust enrichment claims.

Unfair CompetitionLanham ActFalse AdvertisingTrademark InfringementNew York General Business Law § 349Unjust EnrichmentMotion to DismissBreach of ContractTrade Secret MisappropriationConversion
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

NewMarkets Partners LLC v. Oppenheim

This Memorandum & Order addresses motions to dismiss in a case concerning false advertising under the Lanham Act and various state law claims. Plaintiffs, NewMarkets Partners LLC, CAM NewMarkets Partners LP, and Marie-Frances Mathes, allege that Defendants Sal. Oppenheim Jr. & CIE. S.C.A., CAM Private Equity Consulting & Verwaltungs GmbH, and BVT Beratungs-, Verwaltungsund Treuhandgesellsehaft für Internationale Vermorgensanlagen MBH, misused their proprietary investment model and names to market competing German funds. The court granted BVT-B's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. It also dismissed the civil conspiracy claim against Oppenheim and CAM, and the unfair competition claim against Oppenheim. However, motions to dismiss the false advertising claim against Oppenheim and CAM, and the unjust enrichment claim against CAM were denied. The tortious interference claim against CAM was denied as moot due to an amended complaint.

Lanham ActFalse AdvertisingPersonal JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionUnfair CompetitionCivil ConspiracyUnjust EnrichmentJoint Venture AgreementPrivate Equity FundsExtraterritorial Jurisdiction
References
75
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pom Wonderful LLC v. Organic Juice USA, Inc.

Plaintiff POM Wonderful LLC ("Pom") and defendant Organic Juice, Inc. ("Organic Juice") are competing purveyors of bottled pomegranate juice involved in a dispute over false advertising and deceptive marketing practices. Pom initiated the lawsuit, alleging Organic Juice violated federal and state laws by selling "adulterated" juice falsely labeled as "100% pure." Organic Juice counterclaimed, accusing Pom of deceptively marketing its juice made from concentrate and making unsubstantiated health claims, even adding elderberry juice concentrate from 2002 to 2008. The court considered three motions: Pom's motion for summary judgment on Organic Juice's counterclaims, Organic Juice's motion for partial summary judgment on the same, and Pom's motion to dismiss Organic Juice's amended counterclaims. The court denied all three motions, finding that despite alleged methodological flaws, consumer surveys demonstrating potential confusion regarding Pom's advertisements were admissible. Furthermore, the court ordered Pom to pay Organic Juice's costs and attorney's fees related to the motion to dismiss, deeming that particular motion frivolous.

False AdvertisingLanham ActSummary JudgmentConsumer ConfusionSurvey EvidenceBrand MarketingJuice LabelingConcentrateElderberryHealth Claims
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Barto

The defendant was convicted after a jury trial in Seneca County Court for insurance fraud in the third degree, falsifying business records in the first degree, defrauding the government, and falsely reporting an incident in the third degree. The charges arose from the defendant, an acting Village Justice, falsely reporting an assault to police, allegedly to obtain prescription pain medication. Medical evidence presented by the prosecution, including the absence of injuries despite extensive testing, contradicted the defendant's account of being strangled and struck. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the judgment, rejecting the defendant's contentions regarding the legal sufficiency and weight of the evidence. The court found that the jury could reasonably conclude the defendant falsely reported the incident and caused a false workers' compensation form to be filed. The appellate court also found no reason to modify the sentence despite improper prosecutorial statements.

Insurance FraudFalsifying Business RecordsDefrauding GovernmentFalse ReportingAssault ClaimMedical EvidenceLegal SufficiencyWeight of EvidenceWorkers' CompensationJury Trial
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Starks

Defendant was convicted of grand larceny in the third degree and two counts of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree, stemming from his failure to report workers' compensation benefits while receiving social services benefits. The appellate court first addressed the defendant's Batson challenge regarding a peremptorily excused black juror, affirming the lower court's finding that the prosecutor's explanation was race-neutral. Next, the court found legally sufficient evidence to support the grand larceny conviction, noting that the defendant's misrepresentations were material and resulted in an overpayment exceeding $3,000. Additionally, the court rejected claims of abridged confrontation rights, prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective assistance of counsel. Finally, the judgment was modified to impose concurrent, rather than consecutive, sentences for the grand larceny and false instrument for filing convictions, and as modified, affirmed.

Grand LarcenyFalse Instrument for FilingSocial Services Benefits FraudWorkers' Compensation OverpaymentBatson ChallengeJuror Peremptory ChallengeSufficiency of EvidenceConfrontation Clause RightsProsecutorial MisconductIneffective Assistance of Counsel
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 20, 1993

Ray v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Larry Ray, a maintenance worker, and Blake Willett, an LIRR Police Officer, were involved in a physical altercation where Willett allegedly beat and handcuffed Ray. Ray was later released by Willett's supervisor. Plaintiffs sued Willett and the Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) for battery, false arrest and imprisonment, negligent retention, and civil rights violations under 42 USC § 1983. The Supreme Court, Kings County, dismissed claims against the LIRR for negligent retention and civil rights violations and dismissed the complaint against Willett due to defective service of process. The jury found Willett liable for battery and false arrest/imprisonment but not for civil rights violation. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding no error in the dismissals, concluding that Willett's conduct was not within the scope of employment and he was not acting under color of state law, and that service upon Willett was indeed defective.

BatteryFalse ImprisonmentCivil Rights ViolationNegligent RetentionRespondeat SuperiorPolice MisconductPersonal JurisdictionService of ProcessAppellate LawKings County
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Procter & Gamble Co. v. Ultreo, Inc.

The Procter & Gamble Company (P&G) sued Ultreo, Inc. for false advertising under the Lanham Act and the New York Consumer Protection Act, specifically challenging Ultreo's claims about its toothbrush technology. P&G sought the disclosure of five scientific studies conducted by Ultreo, arguing they were discoverable business documents. Ultreo resisted, claiming the studies were protected by attorney work product privilege. The court rejected Ultreo's argument, finding that the studies were a core part of Ultreo’s business plan to substantiate its advertising claims and would have been prepared regardless of anticipated litigation. Therefore, the court ordered Ultreo to produce the studies to P&G.

False advertisingLanham ActNew York Consumer Protection ActDiscovery disputeAttorney work productPrivilegeScientific studiesClinical researchLitigation anticipationBusiness plan
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Display Producers, Inc. v. Shulton, Inc.

The case involves Display Producers, Inc. (DPI) suing Shulton, Inc. and Ledan, Inc. concerning the design and advertising of a point-of-sale display for 'Cie' perfume. DPI alleges that Ledan falsely claimed to have created the display, violating the Lanham Act, and that Shulton is liable for contributory infringement by enabling Ledan's false representations. Shulton moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing DPI failed to state a claim under the Lanham Act because it did not allege Shulton knew or anticipated Ledan's wrongful conduct. The court granted Shulton's motion to dismiss, ruling that merely providing the opportunity for wrongdoing is insufficient for contributory infringement liability, and denied DPI's cross-motion to amend the complaint, subsequently dismissing pendent state claims.

Lanham Actcontributory infringementfalse advertisingreverse palming-offmotion to dismissFed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6)Fed.R.Civ.P. 56Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)design disputeproduct display
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 805 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