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

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Planning Board

Petitioner Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. applied for a conditional use permit and site plan approval in the Town of North Elba for a retail store. Respondent, the Planning Board, denied the application, citing adverse visual impact, effects on community character, and non-compliance with the Town Land Use Code after a SEQRA review and public hearing. Wal-Mart challenged this denial as arbitrary, capricious, and lacking substantial evidence, also alleging Open Meetings Law violations. The Supreme Court transferred the proceeding to the Appellate Division. The Appellate Division retained jurisdiction, applying a rationality standard, and ultimately confirmed the Planning Board's determination, dismissing Wal-Mart's petition.

Conditional Use PermitSite Plan ApprovalState Environmental Quality Review ActPlanning BoardJudicial ReviewRationality StandardAesthetic ImpactCommunity CharacterTown Land Use CodeOpen Meetings Law
References
18
Case No. 15-cv-4357 (PAC)
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 02, 2017

Chavis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Cory Chavis, an Asset Protection Manager at a Walmart in Suffern, New York, sued Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, alleging religious discrimination and retaliation under Title VII. Chavis sought a religious accommodation to not work on Sundays due to her Sabbath observance. While initially requiring her to use vacation days, Walmart later granted her accommodation. Chavis subsequently claimed a hostile work environment and discriminatory denial of seventeen promotions. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment in part, dismissing claims of failure to accommodate and hostile work environment, as well as most promotion claims. However, it denied summary judgment on Chavis's retaliation claim and promotion claims for specific MAPM and ASM positions, finding genuine issues of material fact.

Religious DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentFailure to PromoteTitle VIIHostile Work EnvironmentSabbath AccommodationWalmartEmployment LawNew York Law
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Richey v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Plaintiff Tina Richey filed a wrongful discharge lawsuit against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Wal-Mart Stores Texas, L.L.C., alleging she was terminated for refusing to participate in an illegal scheme to defraud vendors. Wal-Mart moved for summary judgment, contending there was insufficient evidence for Richey's Sabine Pilot claim, which requires proving she was discharged solely for refusing to commit a criminal act. The court denied Wal-Mart's motion, finding genuine disputes of material fact regarding whether Richey was indeed discharged, if her refusal was the sole reason, and if there was actual malice to support punitive damages. Additionally, the court ruled that Richey's prior EEOC charge, mentioning sexual harassment, did not serve as a judicial admission to bar her Sabine Pilot claim. Consequently, the case will proceed to trial, as sufficient evidence exists for a jury to decide the claims.

Wrongful DischargeSabine Pilot ExceptionEmployment At Will DoctrineSummary Judgment MotionFraud AllegationsPunitive DamagesJudicial AdmissionsEEOC ChargePretext for TerminationFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 07, 2002

Paul T. Freund Corp. v. Commonwealth Packing Co.

This case concerns a diversity breach of contract dispute between Paul T. Freund Corp. (plaintiff) and Commonwealth Packaging Company (CPC) and Victoria's Secret Stores (VSS) (defendants), removed from state court. Freund sued CPC for breach of contract and VSS for breach of contract (alleging CPC was its agent) and tortious interference. CPC filed counterclaims against Freund for breach of contract, breach of warranties, and misrepresentation, and a crossclaim against VSS for indemnification. The core factual disputes revolved around the terms of the contract, delivery schedules for holiday gift boxes, the quality of materials (Dainel), and whether an agency relationship existed between CPC and VSS. The Court issued a mixed decision on motions for summary judgment, granting VSS's motion for summary judgment against Freund, dismissing Freund's Count Two, and granting VSS's motion to dismiss CPC's crossclaim. Freund's motion for partial summary judgment against CPC was granted in part, dismissing CPC's warranty and misrepresentation counterclaims, and a portion of its lost profits claim, while denying CPC's motion for summary judgment against Freund.

Contract lawSummary judgmentBreach of contractAgency relationshipLost profitsImplied warrantyNegligent misrepresentationNew York lawMaterials disputeTimeliness of delivery
References
40
Case No. 10-CV-5255 (ERK)(LB)
Regular Panel Decision

Rosario v. Valentine Avenue Discount Store, Co.

Plaintiff Julian Rosario filed a collective action lawsuit against multiple discount stores and Raymond Srour, alleging unpaid overtime and minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The plaintiff sought conditional certification of the collective action, production of potential opt-in plaintiffs' information, and authorization to circulate a notice of pendency. The court, presided over by Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom, granted the plaintiff's motion. The decision was based on a 'modest factual showing' that employees across several stores were subject to a common policy of wage and hour violations, despite initial concerns about the scope of the class and the definition of similarly situated employees. The court outlined specific modifications for the notice of pendency, including defining the class as 'non-managerial employees who performed work related to the receipt, stocking, or sale of merchandise, or general maintenance/cleaning of the store,' and also addressed the content and dissemination of the notice, and the production of employee information.

FLSANew York Labor LawWage and Hour DisputeOvertime CompensationMinimum WageCollective ActionConditional CertificationEmployee RightsEmployer LiabilityRetail Industry
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 10, 2004

In Re Paris Packaging, Inc.

Vernon Moore filed suit against his former employer, Paris Packaging, Inc., alleging retaliatory discharge and discrimination. The trial court initially ordered arbitration in accordance with a collective bargaining agreement but later reversed its decision, finding Moore could not afford the arbitration costs. Paris Packaging sought a writ of mandamus from the appellate court to compel arbitration. The appellate court determined that the trial court abused its discretion by misapplying the law regarding the union's obligation to cover arbitration expenses and the applicability of the collective bargaining agreement to all employees within the bargaining unit, regardless of union membership. Consequently, the appellate court conditionally granted the petition for writ of mandamus.

Retaliatory DischargeDiscriminationArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementMandamusAbuse of DiscretionDue ProcessArbitration CostsUnion MembershipTexas Law
References
17
Case No. 08-15-00126-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2016

in Re: Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Wal-Mart Stores Texas, L.P., Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., and Wal-Mart Stores Texas, LLC

Blanca Calderon filed a lawsuit against Wal-Mart, alleging wrongful termination due to age discrimination or a worker's compensation claim. Following discovery disputes, the trial court, presided over by Judge Luis Aguilar, granted Calderon's motion to compel and denied Wal-Mart's motion for a protective order. Subsequently, Wal-Mart was found in contempt for non-compliance with discovery orders and assessed significant fines and attorney's fees. Wal-Mart petitioned for a writ of mandamus, challenging the contempt findings on grounds of inadequate notice and arguing that the discovery orders were overbroad. The Court of Appeals conditionally granted mandamus relief, vacating the contempt orders due to insufficient notice and ordering the return of paid fines, but affirmed the trial court's discovery order and sanctions related to attorney's fees.

MandamusContempt OrderDiscovery AbuseProtective Order DenialMonetary SanctionsAbuse of DiscretionInadequate NoticeCriminal ContemptProcedural Due ProcessTexas Court of Appeals
References
33
Case No. E2015-01653-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2016

Eric G. Glasgow v. K-VA-T Food Stores, Inc.

Eric G. Glasgow sued K-VA-T Food Stores, Inc. in a premises liability action after suffering injuries from a fall in a grocery store restroom. Glasgow alleged negligence, claiming a handrail detached from the wall, causing him to fall and develop chronic migraines. A jury initially awarded $350,000 in damages, which the trial court reduced to $250,000. K-VA-T Food Stores, Inc. appealed, arguing the reduced award lacked material evidence. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Knoxville affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that material evidence, including Glasgow's significant lifestyle changes and permanent predisposition to pain, supported the damages award.

Premises liabilityPersonal injuryJury verdictCompensatory damagesMigrainesPost-concussion syndromeNegligenceAppellate reviewMaterial evidenceRemittitur
References
9
Case No. 01-15-00058-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 2014

Jamie Genender v. Larry Kirkwood and USA Store Fixtures, LLC

This case involves an appeal from a dispute over the purchase of used shelving. Applicant Jamie Genender, for her business Critter Stuff, LLC, purchased shelving from Appellee USA Store Fixtures, LLC. Following dissatisfaction with the goods and a credit card chargeback, USA Store Fixtures sued Genender and Critter Stuff. Genender counterclaimed, alleging DTPA violations, fraud, and trespass. The District Court granted summary judgment against Genender on various claims, finding some DTPA claims time-barred and dismissing others on procedural grounds (res judicata, no evidence for trespass). The appellate court affirmed the finding of actual damages against Genender for breach of contract but reversed the award of attorney's fees to USA Store Fixtures due to a lack of proof of presentment of the claim, modifying the trial court's judgment accordingly. The appellate court also addressed jurisdictional issues related to new claims brought in a de novo appeal from Justice Court to County Court.

Breach of contractDeceptive Trade Practices ActStatute of LimitationsRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelTrespassDebt Collection PracticesCredit Card DisputeAttorney's FeesJurisdiction
References
110
Case No. 03-14-00197-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Graphic Packaging Corporation v. Glenn Hegar, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas And Ken Paxton, Attorney General of the State of Texas

This is a reply brief for Graphic Packaging, Inc. in an appeal concerning the application of Texas's franchise tax. Graphic Packaging argues that it properly used the Multistate Tax Compact's three-factor apportionment formula, contending that Texas Tax Code § 171.106(a) did not impliedly repeal the Compact's election or formula. The appellant asserts that the Compact is a valid and binding interstate agreement, not a mere uniform law, and that its mandatory election provision is unambiguous. Furthermore, Graphic Packaging argues that the Compact Election does not violate the Texas Constitution's anti-surrender tax power provision and that the franchise tax qualifies as an "income tax" under the Compact's broad definition.

Franchise TaxTax ApportionmentMultistate Tax CompactContract ClauseTaxation LawState SovereigntyStatutory InterpretationImplied RepealDue ProcessCommerce Clause
References
67
Showing 1-10 of 1,381 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