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
May 03, 2004

Ulloa v. Universal Music and Video Distribution Corp.

Plaintiff Demme Ulloa initiated legal action against Universal Music and Video Distribution Corp., Island Def Jam Music Group, Roc-A-Fella Records, LLC, and Shawn Carter, alleging copyright infringement, false designation of origin under the Lanham Act, unjust enrichment, joint authorship, and an accounting of sales. Ulloa claimed to have spontaneously created a vocal counter-melody for Shawn Carter's song "Izzo (H.O.V.A.)" which was later used without proper credit or compensation. The Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the claims of joint authorship and Lanham Act violations, dismissing them. However, it denied both parties' motions for summary judgment regarding copyright infringement, citing unresolved factual disputes concerning originality, work-for-hire status, and implied license. Additionally, the defendants' motions to dismiss the unjust enrichment claim and to bifurcate the trial were denied.

Copyright InfringementLanham ActUnjust EnrichmentJoint AuthorshipSummary JudgmentWork for HireImplied LicenseMusical CompositionSound RecordingOriginality
References
31
Case No. 16 NY3d 706
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 13, 2011

Federal Insurance v. International Business MacHines Corp.

Federal Insurance Company (Federal) sought a declaration that its excess insurance policy did not cover attorneys' fees paid by International Business Machines Corporation and the IBM Personal Pension Plan (collectively, IBM) in a class action lawsuit (*Cooper v IBM Personal Pension Plan*). The *Cooper* action alleged violations of ERISA pertaining to age discrimination. IBM sought reimbursement from Federal after exhausting an underlying Zurich policy. The core dispute revolved around whether the disputed language in Federal's "follow form" policy extended coverage to IBM's actions as a plan settlor, which are not considered fiduciary acts under ERISA. The Supreme Court initially denied Federal's motion, but the Appellate Division reversed, granting summary judgment to Federal. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, holding that the policy's plain language limited coverage to acts of an insured undertaken in its capacity as an ERISA fiduciary, which IBM was not in this instance.

Insurance Policy InterpretationERISAFiduciary DutyExcess InsuranceSummary JudgmentPlan SettlorEmployee Benefit PlansContract LawPolicy CoverageAge Discrimination
References
18
Case No. 01-14-00687-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 13, 2015

the Better Business Bureau of Metropolitan Houston, Inc., the Better Business Bureau of Metropolitan Houston Education Foundation, Dan Parsons, Chris Church, Church Enterprises, Inc., Gary Milleson, Ronald N. McMillan, D' Artagnan Bebel, Mark Goldie, Cha v. John Moore Services, Inc. and John Moore Renovation, LLC

This document contains two responses from John Moore Services, Inc. and John Moore Renovation, LLC. The primary document, filed March 13, 2015, is a response to the Appellants' (Better Business Bureau et al.) objections to consolidation of related cases for submission. John Moore Services, Inc. and John Moore Renovation, LLC (Appellees) advocate for consolidation, asserting it would serve justice and efficiency by resolving all issues in a single judgment and prevent further confusion arising from separate appeals. The embedded document, filed June 12, 2014, is a response and objection to the Better Business Bureau's motion for attorneys' fees, court costs, expenses, and sanctions. John Moore argues that the requested fees are not reasonable or necessary, that the issue of reasonableness requires a jury trial, and that the supporting evidence (Elkin Affidavit and invoices) is legally insufficient and conclusory. Furthermore, John Moore contends that awarding fees at this stage would be neither just nor equitable, given the ongoing viable claims, and requests the court to deny the motion for fees, sustain their objections, grant their motion to consolidate, and compel discovery responses.

LitigationAttorney FeesCase ConsolidationAnti-SLAPP StatuteTexas Civil ProcedureAppellate PracticeJury TrialEvidence ObjectionsDiscovery DisputesLegal Fees Reasonableness
References
27
Case No. M2002-02789-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 28, 2004

Child Bride Music, Inc v. Jackson

This case concerns an appeal where the assignee, Carl Jackson (d/b/a Lonesome Dove Music), contested a judgment binding him to a reclamation of rights provision. The provision originated in a contract between his assignor, Famous Music Corporation, and a copyright grantor, Bobbie Cryner (d/b/a Bobbie Cryner Music). Cryner had assigned copyright ownership to Famous Music, which then granted a 50% interest to Jackson. The original agreement allowed Cryner to reclaim unexploited compositions. When Cryner exercised this right for the song 'Real Live Woman,' Jackson refused to re-assign his share. The court affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that Jackson, as an assignee, inherited the obligations of his assignor and was thus bound by the reclamation clause.

Copyright LawAssignmentContract LawReclamation RightsMusic PublishingIntellectual PropertyAssignor-Assignee RightsCommercial ExploitationChancery Court AppealReal Live Woman
References
16
Case No. 10-19-00004-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 27, 2022

Texas Central Business Lines Corporation v. U.S. Polyco, Inc.

Texas Central Business Lines Corporation (TCB) and U.S. Polyco, Inc. (USP) entered into agreements for the construction of a plant and infrastructure, leading to a dispute over cost responsibilities and contract interpretation. USP sued TCB for breach of contract, and TCB counterclaimed. The trial court partially granted USP's motion for summary judgment on contract interpretation, and a jury subsequently found TCB in material breach, awarding USP substantial damages. On appeal, the Tenth Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the judgment, finding that the trial court erred by interpreting an ambiguous contract provision as a matter of law and by instructing the jury based on that erroneous interpretation. The appellate court concluded that the contract provision was ambiguous, necessitating a remand for a new trial to determine the parties' true intent.

Contract DisputeBreach of ContractContract InterpretationSummary JudgmentJury InstructionRailroad Allowance AgreementTransload AgreementInfrastructure ImprovementsAmbiguity in ContractCanons of Construction
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 08, 2007

Canal Carting, Inc. v. City of New York Business Integrity Commission

Petitioners Canal Carting, Inc. and Canal Sanitation, Inc., long-standing private sanitation businesses, challenged the Business Integrity Commission's (BIC) denial of their license renewals. The BIC cited Canal's knowing failure to provide required documentation, inability to demonstrate eligibility, and two violations for illegal dumping and operating an illegal transfer station. Canal argued the findings were arbitrary, capricious, and unprecedented, insisting their financial issues were unrelated to organized crime, which Local Law 42 (governing BIC) aimed to combat. The court found no due process violation regarding a formal hearing but concluded that the BIC's denial, effectively closing Canal's 50-year business for what amounted to poor business management, was arbitrary, unduly harsh, and shocking to one's sense of fairness. Consequently, the court granted the petition, annulled the BIC's denial, and remanded the case for reconsideration.

License RenewalAdministrative LawArticle 78 ProceedingBusiness Integrity CommissionTrade Waste IndustryDue ProcessArbitrary and CapriciousJudicial ReviewLocal Law 42Financial Responsibility
References
6
Case No. 01-04-01088-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 23, 2005

Universal Computer Consulting, Ltd. Universal Computer Services, Inc. And Dealer Computer Services, Inc. v. Dealer Solutions, L.L.C., Dealer Solutions Holdings, Inc. ADP, Inc., Business Solutions, Inc., SMC Investment, Inc., Southwest Toyota, Inc., and SMC Luxury Cars, Inc.

This trade secrets case involves Appellants Universal Computer Systems, Inc. (UCS) and Appellees Dealer Solutions, L.L.C., Dealer Solutions Holdings, Inc., ADP, Inc., SMC Investment, Inc., Southwest Toyota, Inc., SMC Luxury Cars, Inc., and Business Solutions, Inc. (collectively DSI). The parties had a dispute regarding trade secret misappropriation and a breach of a license agreement, which they agreed to arbitrate. The trial court confirmed the arbitrators' decision, which UCS appealed, alleging improper discovery orders and 'gross mistakes' by the arbitrators. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's confirmation, finding that any error in the trial court's discovery order was ameliorated by the arbitrators' full consideration of evidence, and that UCS failed to demonstrate gross mistake in the arbitration decision.

Trade secretsArbitrationDiscovery sanctionsArbitration awardCopyright preemptionSoftware licensingConfidentiality agreementBreach of contractGross mistakeTexas General Arbitration Act
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Screen Gems-Emi Music Inc.

Plaintiff Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. sued Screen Gems-EMI Music Inc., Colgems-EMI Music Inc. (collectively EMI), and Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI) for copyright infringement and state law violations. EMI moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that the claims were primarily based on contract law, not copyright law. The court applied the three-part Schoenberg v. Shapolsky Publishers, Inc. test, determining that Hanna-Barbera's infringement claim was incidental to contract disputes, not a breach of a condition to a copyright contract, and EMI's actions did not constitute a material breach creating a right of rescission. The court found that the central issue revolved around the interpretation of contracts regarding copyright ownership and revenue distribution, which falls under state contract law. Therefore, the court granted EMI's motion, dismissing both federal and state claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Copyright infringementContract disputeSubject matter jurisdictionFederal courtLicense agreementRoyaltiesMusic copyrightsDismissalSecond Circuit lawSchoenberg test
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wilson v. International Business MacHines, Inc.

Plaintiff Caroline Wilson sued defendants International Business Machines (IBM) and Frank Urban, alleging gender and/or pregnancy discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and N.Y. Executive Law § 296. Wilson's employment was terminated in 2002 during a reduction in force, shortly after returning from maternity leave. She argued she was unfairly laid off in favor of a male colleague. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting a legitimate, non-discriminatory business reason related to retaining the other employee's customer relationships and ongoing deals. The court found that while Wilson established a prima facie case, she failed to demonstrate that the defendants' reasons were a pretext for discrimination, or to present sufficient other evidence of unlawful discrimination. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint.

DiscriminationGender DiscriminationPregnancy DiscriminationTitle VIIHuman Rights LawSummary JudgmentLayoffReduction in ForcePretextPrima Facie Case
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

L&L Painting Co. v. Contract Dispute Resolution Board

L&L and Odyssey, contractors for lead-based paint removal on the Queensboro Bridge, disputed a contract drawing's interpretation with the Department of Transportation (DOT) concerning scaffolding clearance. Petitioners sought additional compensation after DOT rejected their proposed platform design, claiming a latent ambiguity in the contract. The Contract Dispute Resolution Board (CDRB) denied their claim, finding a patent ambiguity requiring pre-bid clarification. The Supreme Court upheld CDRB's decision, and this appellate court affirmed, concluding that the ambiguity was indeed patent, contrasting 'all roadways' in the note with the drawing's specific references. A dissenting opinion argued against this, stating an engineer would find no ambiguity.

Contract DisputePublic Works ContractQueensboro BridgeConstruction LawContract InterpretationAmbiguityPatent AmbiguityLatent AmbiguityCPLR Article 78Administrative Law
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 6,268 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