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

United States v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp.

Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation ("Fox") and its branch manager, Leila J. Goldstein, were found guilty of criminal contempt for violating a 1951 consent decree from United States v. Loew’s Inc. The decree enjoined Fox from "block booking" films, a practice where the right to exhibit one film is conditioned upon licensing others. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York found overwhelming evidence that Goldstein, acting within the scope of her authority, willfully and repeatedly violated this order by coercing exhibitors into licensing less desirable films before more popular ones. The court also found Fox criminally liable for Goldstein's managerial conduct. Sentencing for both defendants was scheduled for December 7, 1988.

Criminal ContemptBlock BookingConsent Decree ViolationMotion Picture IndustrySherman ActAntitrust LawCorporate Criminal LiabilityWillful ViolationManagerial Employee ConductFilm Distribution
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Chmiel

The case involves an appeal by Magno Sound, Inc., a sound and video company, from a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Board had assessed Magno Sound for additional unemployment insurance contributions, determining that a film editor claimant, hired for a film production, was a statutory employee under Labor Law § 511 (1) (b) (1-a). Magno Sound contended the claimant was an independent contractor and that the statute was misconstrued. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, deferring to its rational interpretation of the Labor Law, which extends unemployment insurance benefits to those in the performing arts. The court found that claimant's services for a film production fit the criteria for statutory employment, upholding the assessment against Magno Sound.

Unemployment InsuranceStatutory EmployeeIndependent ContractorPerforming ArtsFilm ProductionLabor LawStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewEmployer ContributionsFilm Editor
References
3
Case No. ADJ3923408
Regular
Apr 20, 2009

Andrea Seyfried vs. Compass Films, Inc., National Surety Company/Fireman's Fund, Power Payroll, Inc., California Insurance Guarantee Association for Legion Insurance Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board found that the applicant sustained an industrial injury while employed by both Power Payroll (general employer) and Compass Films (special employer). Power Payroll was insured by Legion Insurance, whose obligations are now handled by CIGA. Compass Films was insured by Fireman's Fund. The Board rescinded the prior order finding Power Payroll as the sole employer and returned the case for proceedings to determine the respective liabilities of CIGA and Fireman's Fund. CIGA is not liable if Fireman's Fund policy constitutes "other insurance" available to the applicant.

General employerSpecial employerDual employmentPayroll servicesFilm industryInsurance Guarantee AssociationInsurer insolvencySpecial employer controlPayroll companyProduction manager
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Yash Raj Films (USA), Inc. v. Akhtar (In Re Akhtar)

Yash Raj Films (USA), Inc. (

Copyright InfringementNondischargeabilityBankruptcy Code Section 523(a)(6)Collateral EstoppelSummary JudgmentWillful and Malicious InjuryPreliminary InjunctionCivil ContemptStatutory DamagesChapter 7
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Randolph v. Dimension Films

The plaintiff, Tina M. Randolph, sought reconsideration of a prior order that dismissed her copyright infringement claim against Dimension Films and several other entities. Randolph alleged that the defendants' motion picture, *The Adventures of Shark Boy and Lava Girl in 3-D*, infringed the copyright of her book, *Mystic Deja: Maze of Existence*. The court denied Randolph's motion for reconsideration, reaffirming its previous conclusion that there was no substantial similarity between the two works and that dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) was appropriate. Additionally, the court granted in part the defendants' motion for attorneys' fees and costs, finding that Randolph's claims were objectively unreasonable, warranting a fee award as a deterrent against meritless lawsuits.

Copyright InfringementMotion for ReconsiderationAttorneys' FeesSubstantial SimilarityRule 12(b)(6)Dismissal with PrejudiceObjective UnreasonablenessDeterrenceFifth Circuit PrecedentSouthern District of Texas
References
74
Case No. 13 Civ. 1297 (JPO)
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 31, 2014

Duffey v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp.

This case revolves around Todd Duffey, an actor who portrayed a character in the movie *Office Space*, suing Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation and Running Press. Duffey alleged false endorsement under the Lanham Act and breach of contract, claiming unauthorized use of his image on 'Box of Flair' merchandise. The court, presided over by District Judge J. Paul Oetken, granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the case. The decision was based on the interpretation of Duffey's Day Player Agreement, which was found to unambiguously grant 'all rights throughout the universe' to his performance, including its use for commercial purposes like merchandise. Applying Texas contract law, the court concluded that the defendants' use of Duffey's image was permissible, leading to the dismissal of all his claims.

Intellectual PropertyContract DisputeFalse EndorsementLanham ActDay Player AgreementMerchandising RightsActor RightsFilm IndustryTexas Contract LawChoice of Law
References
60
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 18, 2006

Clonus Associates v. Dreamworks, LLC

This copyright infringement case was brought by Robert Fiveson and Clonus Assocs. against DreamWorks, LLC. Plaintiffs allege that DreamWorks' 2005 film, 'The Island,' infringed the copyright of Fiveson's 1979 movie, 'Parts: The Clonus Horror.' Both films depict secret facilities where clones are raised for organ harvesting. Following discovery, both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The court denied both motions, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding access to the copyrighted work, the degree of similarity between the films, and the defense of independent creation. The court also denied the defendants' motion to preclude damages, as profit calculations were highly contested.

Copyright InfringementSummary JudgmentMotion DeniedFilm IndustryMovie CopyrightSubstantial SimilarityActual CopyingIndependent CreationAccess to WorkProbative Similarity
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brady v. State

Appellant was found guilty of promoting and possessing obscene material, specifically a motion picture titled “Working Girls.” The appellant challenged the conviction, arguing insufficient evidence to prove he promoted the film or knew its content. The court reviewed evidence including an officer's observations of the appellant's managerial actions at the theater, his instructions to “break down” the film, and his familiarity with film splicing procedures. The court distinguished the case from others by noting the charge was “promoting” obscenity, not merely “exhibiting” it. Finding substantial direct and circumstantial evidence that the appellant, as proprietor and manager, controlled the theater's operations, knew of the obscene material, and derived monetary compensation, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

ObscenityPromoting Obscene MaterialPossession Obscene MaterialSufficiency of EvidenceCriminal LawCircumstantial EvidenceDirect EvidenceManagerial ResponsibilityProjection Room OperationsFilm Breakdown
References
11
Case No. ADJ3995122 (OAK 0343980)
Regular
Aug 13, 2013

ROSA GOMEZ vs. NOB HILL FOODS, YORK INSURANCE SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted removal to address the exclusion of sub rosa films and investigator testimony. The trial judge had excluded this evidence because it was disclosed late and not shown to treating doctors. However, the Board found that the defendant properly disclosed the evidence and investigators at the mandatory settlement conference per Labor Code § 5502(d)(3). The admissibility of the sub rosa films and investigator testimony is now deferred to the trial judge.

Sub rosa filmsremovalmandatory settlement conferencedisclosureevidence exclusioninvestigative reportsLabor Code section 5502petition for removalpetition for reconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
0
Case No. ADJ4707980 (VNO 0543260) ADJ3907003 (VNO 0543258) ADJ7500629
Regular
Apr 05, 2012

RAMON SALAZAR vs. CONSOLIDATED DISPOSAL SERVICE, ACE USA Administered By CANNON COCHRAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES INC.

The Appeals Board granted removal, rescinding the WCJ's order for a sanctions hearing and the appearance of the defendant's claims examiner. While acknowledging the duty to disclose evidence before a trial, the Board found no authority requiring pre-expedited hearing disclosure of sub rosa films, thus negating grounds for sanctions. The Board also determined an affidavit from the claims examiner would suffice, making her live appearance unnecessary. The order for the sub rosa films to be sent to the Agreed Medical Examiner was affirmed.

sub rosa filmsexpedited hearingsanctionsPetition for RemovalAgreed Medical Examinertemporary disability indemnitymedical treatmentclaims examineraffidavitLabor Code section 5813
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 64 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