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. 14-08-00493-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 21, 2009

BACM 2002 PB2 Westpark Dr LP, Houston Parkwest Place Ltd, as the Property Owners and the Property Owners v. Harris County Appraisal District and the Appraisal Review Board of Harris County Appraisal District

This appeal concerns a lawsuit where a former property owner initiated judicial review of an ad valorem tax valuation protest by the county appraisal district. A subsequent property purchaser was later included as a plaintiff. The appraisal district challenged the plaintiffs' standing through a plea to the jurisdiction, leading the trial court to dismiss the suit. The appellate court affirmed this dismissal, concluding that neither the initial property owner (BACM 2002 PB2 Westpark Dr. LP) nor the subsequent owner (Houston Parkwest Place Ltd.) possessed the requisite standing to pursue judicial review. Consequently, the trial court was found to lack subject-matter jurisdiction over the dispute.

Property TaxAd Valorem TaxJudicial ReviewStanding DoctrineSubject-Matter JurisdictionPlea to the JurisdictionTexas Tax CodeTexas Rule of Civil Procedure 28Appellate ProcedureProperty Ownership
References
30
Case No. CV-24-1494
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 15, 2026

Matter of Beeline.Com, Inc. v. State of N.Y. Tax Appeals Trib.

Petitioner, Beeline.Com, Inc., a Florida company, initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge a determination by the New York Tax Appeals Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld a sales tax assessment imposed by the Department of Taxation and Finance on Beeline.Com's vendor management system (VMS), deeming it a sale of licenses to use prewritten computer software under Tax Law article 28. Beeline.Com argued it primarily provided nontaxable services and its software was customized, not prewritten. The Appellate Division, Third Department, confirmed the Tribunal's determination, finding that the VMS license constituted a sale of tangible personal property, was prewritten software despite minor reconfigurations, and was the core element of Beeline.Com's transactions, not incidental to services.

Sales TaxComputer Software LicensePrewritten SoftwareTax Appeals TribunalCPLR Article 78Vendor Management System (VMS)Tangible Personal PropertyTrue Object TestPrimary Function TestTax Law Article 28
References
15
Case No. 09-02-018 CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 2003

U.S. Restaurant Properties Operating, L.P. and U.S. Restaurant Properties, Inc. v. Motel Enterprises, Inc.

Motel Enterprises, Inc. sued U.S. Restaurant Properties Operating L.P. and U.S. Restaurant Properties, Inc. for breach of a put option in a purchase and sale agreement. Motel exercised its right to have USRP purchase a $500,000 promissory note, but USRP refused, claiming the note's maker, Bar S Restaurants, Inc., was in material default on a lease. A jury found no material default and awarded Motel $550,000. On appeal, USRP challenged the sufficiency of evidence, damages, jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, and prejudgment interest. The appellate court affirmed the liability and damages findings, but reversed and remanded for recalculation of prejudgment interest, also modifying the judgment to require Motel to transfer the note to USRP.

Breach of ContractPut OptionPromissory NoteLease AgreementMaterial DefaultSufficiency of EvidenceDamages CalculationJury InstructionsEvidentiary RulingsPrejudgment Interest
References
20
Case No. 03-15-00314-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 07, 2015

California Insurance Guarantee Association, Oklahoma Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association, and Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association v. Hill Brothers Transportation, Inc.

The appellants, California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA), Oklahoma Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association (OPCIGA), and Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association (TPCIGA), collectively "Guaranty Associations," are appealing a summary judgment granted in favor of the appellee, Hill Brothers Transportation, Inc. ("Hill Bros."). The suit was filed on March 31, 2009, alleging Hill Bros. failed to reimburse the Guaranty Associations for payments of workers' compensation benefits and claim handling expenses within the deductible limits of a policy issued by the insolvent Legion Insurance Company ("Legion"). The District Court granted summary judgment to Hill Bros. based on the statute of limitations, ruling that the cause of action accrued on April 1, 2002. The Guaranty Associations argue that the accrual date is incorrect, as their statutory obligations had not been triggered, payments had not been made, and demand for reimbursement had not occurred by that date. They also contend that their compliance with Pennsylvania law (the "Pennsylvania Act") in seeking reimbursement through Legion in Liquidation constitutes a mitigating circumstance for any delay, making reasonableness a fact question. Furthermore, they assert the policy was a continuing contract, and the statute of limitations should not have accrued until full performance on April 28, 2009. Alternatively, they argue that claims for deductible payments made within four years of filing suit (March 31, 2005) are not barred.

Workers' CompensationInsurance Guaranty AssociationStatute of LimitationsBreach of ContractDeductible ReimbursementInsolvencyInsurance PolicyContinuing ContractPennsylvania ActTravis County
References
21
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 08027 [155 AD3d 900]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 15, 2017

Poalacin v. Mall Properties, Inc.

The plaintiff, Nelson Poalacin, was injured when he fell from a defective ladder while working at a retail property undergoing refurbishment. He sued multiple defendants, including the property owners (Mall Properties, Inc., KMO-361 Realty Associates, LLC, The Gap, Inc.), the general contractor (James Hunt Construction), and subcontractors (Weather Champions, Ltd., APCO Insulation Co., Inc.), alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1), 200, and 241 (6), as well as common-law negligence. The Supreme Court initially denied Poalacin's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) and later granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's orders, granting Poalacin summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and denying the defendants' motions to dismiss the other Labor Law claims. The court also made declarations regarding indemnification and insurance coverage between the parties, finding Harleysville Insurance's policy was excess to Netherlands Insurance Company's policy, and remitted the matter for judgment entry.

Labor LawConstruction AccidentWorkplace SafetyLadder FallSummary JudgmentIndemnificationInsurance DisputesAdditional InsuredCommon-Law NegligenceThird-Party Action
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Psaty & Fuhrman, Inc. v. New York State Tax Commission

Petitioner, a general contracting firm involved in the construction of the Nelson A. Rockefeller Empire State Plaza, faced a personal income tax assessment for additional payments made to 16 employees. These payments, characterized as per diem living and travel allowances, did not have New York State income taxes withheld. The State Tax Commission, after an audit and hearing, ruled these were supplemental wages subject to withholding tax, not reimbursements. Petitioner initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding, bearing the burden of proof, to challenge this determination. The court, noting the payments lacked a fixed formula and some recipients lived locally, found the respondent acted reasonably. The determination was confirmed, and the petition dismissed.

Personal Income TaxWithholding TaxSupplemental WagesPer Diem PaymentsTravel AllowanceLodging AllowanceCPLR Article 78Burden of ProofTax DeficiencyState Tax Commission
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 03, 1966

Crusade for Christ, Inc. v. Town of New Lebanon

The appellant, an unnamed religious corporation, sought tax exemption for its real property in the Town of New Lebanon under Real Property Tax Law section 420. The property, known as 'Lebanon Boys’ Village,' was used for various religious activities, an unlicensed school, and an orphanage. The Referee dismissed the complaint, finding that the corporation's certificate did not authorize operating a school and failed to obtain necessary consents from the Commissioner of Education and the State Board of Social Welfare. The court affirmed the Referee's decision, ruling that the property was not primarily used for statutorily authorized activities. The court concluded that granting the exemption would subsidize improper corporate functions and lacked the public benefit contemplated by the statute.

Real Property Tax Law § 420Tax ExemptionReligious CorporationMembership Corporations LawDeclaratory JudgmentProperty UseUnlicensed SchoolOrphanage ActivitiesCorporate AuthorizationConsent Requirements
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Onondaga Commercial Dry Wall Corp. v. 150 Clinton Street, Inc.

This case concerns the conflict between two classes of claimants, lienors under Article 2 of the Lien Law and trust beneficiaries under Article 3-A (the United States and the State of New York with tax claims), over a $23,000 balance due from an owner on a contract for the construction of apartment buildings. The fund was deposited into court under Lien Law § 55 in prior lien foreclosure actions. The Special Term initially favored the lienors, denying the U.S.'s application to enjoin foreclosure, but the Appellate Division reversed, granting the injunction and seemingly prioritizing tax claims. The Court of Appeals, interpreting the Lien Law, determined that Article 3-A provisions were intended to supplement, not supersede, older mechanic's lien provisions, especially regarding funds paid into court under section 55. The court held that such funds take the place of the property, making lien claims against them akin to claims against the property itself, which are not subject to tax claims under the statute. Therefore, the court reversed the Appellate Division's order and reinstated the Special Term's order, granting priority to the lienors.

Lien LawTrust FundMechanic's LiensTax ClaimsStatutory InterpretationFund PriorityForeclosure ActionsConstruction ContractArticle 2 Lien LawArticle 3-A Lien Law
References
2
Case No. KP-0435
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 07, 2023

Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion: KP-0435

The hospital district in which a county taxpayer resides and votes is of no legal consequence when it comes to the expenditure of county property tax revenue. A county entering into an agreement with a hospital district to provide ambulance services in the county will not violate article III, subsection 52(a) of the Texas Constitution as long as the county: (1) ensures that the transfer of funds is to accomplish a public purpose of the county, not to benefit private parties; (2) retains public control over the funds to ensure that the public purpose is accomplished and to protect the public’s investment; and (3) ensures that the county receives a return benefit. Whether an agreement satisfies the three-part test is for the county commissioners court to determine in the first instance, subject to judicial review. A “debt” as defined by Tax Code subsection 26.012(7) requires, among other things, that the indebtedness be “payable from property taxes in installments over a period of more than one year[.]” A court would likely conclude that an indebtedness payable in installments is one payable in periodic partial payments and, thus, an indebtedness payable in a lump sum over a period of one year or less does not constitute a debt as defined in subsection 26.012(7).

County Tax RevenueHospital DistrictsEmergency Medical ServicesAmbulance ServicesInterlocal Cooperation ActTexas ConstitutionPublic Funds ExpenditureThree-Part TestCounty DebtTax Code Section 26.012
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rosenbloom v. New York State Tax Commission

The petitioner, a real estate appraiser, challenged an unincorporated business tax assessment imposed by the State Tax Commission for the years 1967-1973. The court referenced a prior ruling (Matter of Rosenbloom v State Tax Comm.) which established that the petitioner's activities did not constitute a profession, thus not exempting him from the tax. Finding no new evidence to warrant a change in position, the court upheld the commission's determination regarding the professional exemption. Furthermore, the petitioner's attempt to deduct the fair value of his wife's uncompensated services was denied, as the expense was neither paid nor incurred during the taxable year, failing to meet the criteria for ordinary and necessary business deductions. Consequently, the determination was confirmed, and the petition was dismissed.

real estate appraiserunincorporated business taxtax assessmentprofessional exemptionbusiness expenseCPLR Article 78State Tax CommissionAlbany Countyprior precedentdeduction denial
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 2,843 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