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

Mason v. Pyramid Derrick & Equipment Co.

Elzie Ray Mason, an employee, sued Frank Nicklos, Stewart & Stevenson Oil-tools, Inc., and Pyramid Derrick & Equipment Corporation for injuries at a drilling site. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company intervened for workers' compensation subrogation. A jury found Stewart & Stevenson 60% negligent and Pyramid 40% negligent, but the trial court disregarded Pyramid's liability, entering judgment solely against Stewart & Stevenson. After Mason settled with Stewart & Stevenson, he appealed against Pyramid. The appellate court found sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding of Pyramid's negligence, reversing the trial court's decision. The case was remanded with instructions to render judgment against Pyramid and adjust rights between defendants considering the settlement.

Personal InjuryNegligenceJury VerdictAppealRemandSubrogationWorker's CompensationJoint TortfeasorsContributionIndemnity
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 2005

King v. State

Gayle King was convicted by a jury of two counts of promoting a pyramid promotional scheme and one count of theft by deception. She was sentenced to two concurrent years in a State Jail facility, probated for five years, a fine, and restitution. King appealed, raising eight issues including denial of a requested jury charge instruction on a defensive issue, unsupported restitution, unconstitutionality of the pyramid promotional scheme statute, legal insufficiency of evidence for pyramid scheme and theft, selective prosecution, omission of a requisite knowledge element in the jury charge, double jeopardy violations, and denial of a motion for new trial. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to sustain the convictions and no reversible error on the points raised.

Pyramid SchemeTheft by DeceptionLegal SufficiencyJury Charge ErrorMistake of Fact DefenseConstitutionality ChallengeFirst AmendmentOverbreadthVaguenessDouble Jeopardy
References
60
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wesware, Incorporated v. State

The Attorney General of Texas sought injunctive relief against Wesware, Incorporated for operating a 'pyramid selling scheme' in violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The district court issued a temporary injunction, which Wesware appealed. The appellate court affirmed the temporary injunction, finding sufficient evidence of deceptive trade practices and that the scheme constituted a lottery. The court rejected Wesware's arguments that the plan was fully explained, thus not deceptive, and that the injunction was too broad or violated procedural rules. The decision emphasized that the 'pyramiding of chance upon chance' was the gravamen of the scheme, justifying the injunction.

Deceptive Trade PracticesPyramid SchemeTemporary InjunctionLotteryAbuse of DiscretionReferral SalesTexas LawConsumer ProtectionInterlocutory AppealState Attorney General
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pyramid Co. v. New York State Department of Labor

The petitioner, Pyramid Co., challenged a determination by the Commissioner of Labor that its frontage road project in Syracuse, largely constructed on state land to provide access to its shopping mall, was subject to prevailing wage laws under Labor Law § 220. Despite being deemed a "public works project" due to its public benefit and eventual state acquisition, the court found that the Department of Transportation (DOT) was not a party to the construction contract, and the highway work permits issued by DOT did not constitute "contracts for construction." This failed to satisfy a key condition of Labor Law § 220. Consequently, the Commissioner's determination was annulled, and the petitioner's CPLR article 78 petition was granted.

Prevailing Wage LawPublic Works ProjectContract RequirementHighway Work PermitsDepartment of Labor DeterminationAnnulmentCPLR Article 78 ProceedingConstruction ProjectState LandCarousel Center
References
9
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 02968 [205 AD3d 441]
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 2022

Vitucci v. Durst Pyramid LLC

Plaintiff Rino Vitucci sustained injuries after falling from a bathtub rim while installing a shower-curtain rod. The accident occurred because there was insufficient space to use an A-frame ladder and the bathroom was dimly lit, forcing him to stand on the tub's edge for leverage. The Appellate Division modified a prior Supreme Court order, affirming summary judgment for plaintiff on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against Durst Pyramid LLC and Hunter Roberts Construction Group, L.L.C., finding the bathtub rim served as an elevated work platform. However, the court denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. The court also denied Fred Geller Electrical, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims due to factual issues regarding its responsibility for lighting, and granted Durst/Hunter conditional summary judgment on their contractual indemnification cross claims against Geller. A dissenting opinion argued there was a factual dispute on whether Labor Law § 240 (1) applied, suggesting plaintiff could have performed the work from a lower elevation.

Labor Law § 240 (1) ClaimSummary JudgmentElevation-related RiskScaffold LawContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law NegligenceIndustrial Code ViolationBiomechanical Expert TestimonyRecalcitrant Worker DefenseProximate Cause
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Interstate Properties v. Pyramid Co. of Utica

The court granted a motion to vacate the March 18, 1984 Addendum to an earlier opinion, acknowledging it was based on a mistake of fact. The defendants, Pyramid Company of Utica and associated individuals, had filed counterclaims alleging Sherman Act violations by Interstate. Pyramid contended that Interstate made fraudulent misrepresentations to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) in 1977 to prevent Pyramid from building a shopping mall and maintain Interstate's monopoly. Pyramid further alleged that Interstate later reversed its stance by joining a Joint Venture to successfully seek permission for a similar mall on wetlands. The court ultimately dismissed all counterclaims, finding Pyramid's antitrust allegations legally deficient as they did not satisfy the 'sham exception' to the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. The opinion clarified that mere misrepresentation of intent was not enough; proof of bribery, fraud, or subversion of the NYSDEC process was required, which Pyramid failed to provide.

Antitrust LawSherman ActNoerr-Pennington doctrineSham ExceptionCounterclaimsMotion to VacateFraudulent MisrepresentationEnvironmental ConservationShopping Mall DevelopmentWetlands
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 27, 1998

Pyramid Champlain Co. v. R.P. Brosseau & Co.

These consolidated actions involved various claims arising from contracts for electrical work during the construction of the Pyramid Champlain Centre North shopping mall. Pyramid Champlain Company, the owner/developer, had contracted with R.P. Brosseau & Company for electrical work, who in turn obtained supplies from Westinghouse Electric Supply Company (WESCO). The dispute arose when Pyramid breached its contracts with Brosseau by failing to make payments, leading to Brosseau's departure from the project. The Supreme Court found Pyramid breached its contracts with Brosseau and was directly liable to WESCO based on an oral promise, with Brosseau also being jointly liable to WESCO. On cross appeals, the appellate court affirmed the findings regarding Pyramid's breach of contracts and its direct liability to WESCO, and also upheld the dismissal of Pyramid's claims against Brosseau for willful exaggeration of mechanics' liens. The judgment was modified to clarify that the sum owed to WESCO, including statutory interest, is the joint and several liability of Brosseau and Pyramid, ensuring WESCO does not receive a double recovery of interest.

ContractsElectrical WorkConstruction LawBreach of ContractMechanics' LiensStatute of FraudsAgency RelationshipDamagesJoint and Several LiabilityCross Appeals
References
18
Case No. 13-03-028-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 18, 2005

Gayle King v. State

The case involves Gayle King's appeal after being convicted by a jury of two counts of promoting a pyramid promotional scheme and one count of theft by deception. The trial court sentenced King to concurrent sentences of two years in a State Jail facility, probated for five years, a fine, and restitution. King raised eight issues on appeal, challenging the trial court's denial of a jury charge instruction, restitution order, constitutionality of the statute, legal sufficiency of evidence for the convictions, selective prosecution, omission of a knowledge element in the jury charge, double jeopardy, and denial of a new trial motion. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding sufficient evidence for the pyramid scheme and theft convictions, no error in the jury instructions, and no constitutional violations or double jeopardy issues.

Pyramid schemeTheft by deceptionCriminal appealJury convictionLegal sufficiency of evidenceDouble jeopardyJury charge instructionMistake of fact defenseConstitutional challengeStatutory overbreadth
References
60
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ranieri v. Advocare Int'l, L.P.

This is a class action lawsuit filed by former AdvoCare Distributors, Lisa Ranieri and Megan Cornelius, against AdvoCare International, L.P. and several "Individual Defendants" who are top Distributors. Plaintiffs allege AdvoCare operates as an illegal pyramid scheme, violating RICO, federal securities laws, and causing unjust enrichment. The Individual Defendants are accused of promoting the alleged pyramid scheme. The court addressed motions to dismiss filed by both AdvoCare and the Individual Defendants. The court denied dismissal of AdvoCare's primary RICO violations claims but granted dismissal of AdvoCare's RICO conspiracy, securities fraud, and unjust enrichment claims. It also granted the Individual Defendants' motion to dismiss all RICO causes of action against them. The unjust enrichment claim was dismissed with prejudice, while other dismissed claims were without prejudice, allowing plaintiffs to seek leave to amend their complaint.

Class ActionMotion to DismissRICO ActPyramid SchemeSecurities FraudUnjust EnrichmentPleading StandardsRule 12(b)(6)Rule 9(b)PSLRA
References
61
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reuters America, Inc. v. Sharp

Reuters America, Inc. challenged the constitutionality of a Texas state tax scheme that imposes taxes on information services while exempting newspapers. Reuters, an electronic news service provider, argued that this tax scheme violated the free speech and equal protection clauses of both the federal and state constitutions. The Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts had audited Reuters and assessed additional taxes for its services, which Reuters paid under protest before filing a lawsuit. The district court ruled in favor of the State, a decision which was subsequently affirmed by the Chief Justice. The court held that the tax scheme was constitutionally applied to Reuters, stating it did not suppress ideas or viewpoints, was a generally applicable sales tax, and did not unfairly target a small group of the press. Furthermore, the court determined that the newspaper exemption was based on format distinctions, not content, and was rationally related to the legitimate state interests of promoting literacy and administrative convenience.

Constitutional LawTax LawFirst AmendmentEqual ProtectionFree SpeechPress FreedomInformation ServicesNewspaper ExemptionSales TaxTexas Law
References
31
Showing 1-10 of 327 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