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

7-Eleven, Inc. v. Combs

7-Eleven, Inc. sued the Comptroller of Public Accounts and the Attorney General of Texas seeking a partial refund of sales tax on financial software. The trial court granted summary judgment to the State, which 7-Eleven appealed. 7-Eleven argued its software transfers to out-of-state franchisees qualified for a sale-for-resale exemption and that software for out-of-state company stores was not subject to Texas use tax. The appellate court reversed the summary judgment for the State and remanded the case, highlighting the applicability of the sale-for-resale exemption to the franchise software and the materiality of the 'use' definition for out-of-state company stores, requiring further factual development.

Sales TaxSoftware LicensingTax ExemptionSale for ResaleData Processing ServicesTangible Personal PropertyUse TaxOut-of-State SalesFranchise StoresCompany Stores
References
34
Case No. 03-08-00212-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 22, 2010

7-Eleven, Inc. v. Susan Combs, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas, and Greg Abbott, Attorney General of the State of Texas

7-Eleven, Inc. sued the Comptroller of Public Accounts and Attorney General of Texas, seeking a partial refund of sales tax on financial software for its retail stores. The trial court granted the State's motion for summary judgment, which 7-Eleven appealed. 7-Eleven argued it was entitled to recover taxes on software transferred to out-of-state third-party franchisees and out-of-state 7-Eleven-operated stores, claiming exemption via sale-for-resale or non-use in Texas. The appellate court reversed the summary judgment regarding the sale-for-resale exemption for franchise store software and found neither party was entitled to summary judgment on the out-of-state company stores due to unresolved 'use' issues. The case was remanded for further proceedings, including new issues raised by the State on rehearing concerning software license allocation and potential 'divergent use.'

Sales TaxUse TaxTax ExemptionSale for ResaleData Processing ServicesSoftware LicensingSummary JudgmentTexas Tax CodeAppellate ReviewStatutory Construction
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

7-Eleven, Inc. v. Khan

7-Eleven, Inc. filed a complaint against Tariq A. Khan, Senita Khan, Farouq Khan, and Imran M. Khan (the Khans), franchisee-owners and employees of five 7-Eleven stores on Long Island. 7-Eleven alleged that the Defendants diverted profits from 2009 to 2013 in violation of their franchise agreements. Both parties moved for injunctive relief, and United States Magistrate Judge Arlene R. Lindsay recommended granting 7-Eleven’s motion and denying the Khans’ motion. The District Court, presided over by Judge Spatt, reviewed objections to this report. The Court found substantial evidence of fraud, including unrecorded sales, misuse of POS keys, and significant inventory shortages. Consequently, the Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation, granting 7-Eleven's motion for a preliminary injunction and denying the Khans' cross-motion for injunctive relief.

Franchise Agreement DisputePreliminary InjunctionFraudulent TransactionsPOS System MisuseInventory ShortagesTrademark InfringementBreach of ContractDe Novo ReviewMagistrate Judge ReportIrreparable Harm
References
34
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 04711
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 2019

Orellana v. 7 W. 34th St., LLC

Plaintiff Jose Orellana, a worker performing demolition, allegedly sustained injuries after falling from an eight-foot A-frame ladder while cutting an air duct. He initiated legal action against the building owner, 7 West 34th Street, LLC, and the general contractor, W5 Group, LLC, under Labor Law § 240 (1). Both parties sought summary judgment, which the Supreme Court denied, citing the presence of triable issues of fact. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, determining that neither Orellana nor the defendants had demonstrated prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action. The court also clarified that comparative negligence is not a valid defense against the strict liability imposed by Labor Law § 240 (1), reinforcing the finding of unresolved factual disputes.

Ladder AccidentDemolition InjuriesConstruction SafetyLabor Law ViolationSummary Judgment DenialAppellate ReviewStrict LiabilityComparative NegligenceTriable Issues of FactPersonal Injury
References
20
Case No. 02-11-00047-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 2012

Jim Chambers, Mary Ann Chambers, and Mark Weisbart, Chapter 7 Trustee v. First United Bank & Trust Company

Jim Chambers, Mary Ann Chambers, and Mark Weisbart, a Chapter 7 Trustee, appealed the trial court’s judgment concerning home equity loans from First United Bank & Trust Company. The appellants challenged the trial court’s directed verdict on their breach of fiduciary duty claim and the Bank’s foreclosure order, and further argued against the jury’s findings on damages and the 2004 loan payoff amount, as well as the award of attorney’s fees to the Bank. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that no informal fiduciary duty existed, the Bank properly secured an order of foreclosure, and the jury’s determinations on damages and loan payoff were supported by sufficient evidence. The court also found the award of attorney's fees to the Bank to be equitable and just under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act.

Home Equity LoanForeclosureBreach of Fiduciary DutyDirected VerdictAppellate ReviewLegal SufficiencyFactual SufficiencyDamagesAttorney's FeesUniform Declaratory Judgments Act
References
47
Case No. 03-11-00069-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 2011

Lawrence Black v. Franklin Service Stations, Inc., D/B/A J & J Towing And 7-Eleven Convenience Stores

This case involves Lawrence Black's appeal after his truck was towed from a 7-Eleven parking lot. Black's fiancé, Althea Zuniga, the registered owner, initially won an unlawful towing claim in justice court, but the county court at law ruled in favor of the appellees. Black attempted to intervene and appeal nearly two months after the county court's final judgment, which had also denied Zuniga's motion for new trial. The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, dismissed Black's appeal for want of jurisdiction. The court held that Black's post-judgment attempt to intervene was barred as a matter of law, and he did not qualify under the 'virtual representation' doctrine, thus lacking standing to bring the appeal.

StandingInterventionFinal JudgmentAppellate JurisdictionVirtual RepresentationMotion to DismissTowing DisputeTrial Court JudgmentPost-judgment MotionsTexas Court of Appeals
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reed v. Cooper (In Re Cooper)

This Memorandum Opinion and Order addresses a motion by The Cadle Company, an individual creditor, seeking authorization to prosecute the Chapter 7 estate's causes of action, specifically a Section 542 turnover action and state law fraud claims. The motion was opposed by the debtors, Gary R. and Junanne M. Cooper, and conditionally by the Chapter 7 Trustee. The court analyzes whether an individual creditor in a Chapter 7 case can be granted independent or derivative standing to pursue estate causes of action, distinguishing between Chapter 7 and Chapter 11 contexts. The court concludes there is no textual basis in the Bankruptcy Code for such standing in a Chapter 7 case, noting the unique role of the Chapter 7 trustee as an independent fiduciary without the conflicts of interest often present in Chapter 11. Even if such power existed, the court finds Cadle did not present a compelling argument, as the Trustee had exercised business judgment in attempting to settle the claims. The court ultimately DENIES Cadle's Standing Motion, stating that while Cadle can pursue its independent Section 727(d) action, it cannot usurp the Trustee's role.

Chapter 7 BankruptcyDerivative StandingCreditor StandingTrustee AuthorityEstate Causes of ActionAvoidance ActionsBankruptcy Code InterpretationEquitable PowersJudicial DiscretionMotion Denied
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 11, 2016

Thawar v. 7-Eleven, Inc.

This case concerns Plaintiff Guiñar Thawar's allegations of misconduct by her employer, 7-Eleven, Inc. Thawar claimed 7-Eleven failed to protect her personal information, resulting in identity theft, and subjected her to hostile treatment, including a physical battery by a manager. She brought seven claims, including FMLA discrimination, COBRA violations, conversion, battery, negligence, and negligent misrepresentation. 7-Eleven moved to dismiss several claims. The Court granted the motion to dismiss Thawar's COBRA, battery, and negligent misrepresentation claims, finding deficiencies in her pleadings or legal arguments. However, the Court denied dismissal for her conversion and negligence claims, deeming them sufficiently pleaded for now, and also granted Thawar leave to amend her COBRA and battery claims.

Employment LawFMLACOBRAData BreachIdentity TheftConversionBatteryNegligenceNegligent MisrepresentationMotion to Dismiss
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dipilato v. 7-Eleven, Inc.

Angela DiPilato, a 43-year-old single female, applied to become a 7-Eleven franchisee and was denied. She alleged discrimination based on age, gender, and marital status, filing claims under federal and New York State laws against 7-Eleven and its employees Lynch, Hagler, and Rubinett. Magistrate Judge George A. Yanthis recommended granting summary judgment to defendants on most claims but denying it for claims under New York State Human Rights Law § 296(5)(b) against 7-Eleven and Lynch, and New York Civil Rights Law § 40-c against all defendants. District Judge Cathy Seibel reviewed objections and adopted the R&R, concluding that summary judgment is granted to defendants on most claims, denied for the two specified NY state law claims, and affirmed the order denying leave to amend the complaint. The court found that franchisees are independent contractors, thus federal employment discrimination claims (Title VII, ADEA) were dismissed, as were conspiracy claims and most state constitutional claims.

DiscriminationFranchise LawSummary JudgmentMagistrate Report and RecommendationAge DiscriminationGender DiscriminationMarital Status DiscriminationNew York Human Rights LawNew York Civil Rights LawIndependent Contractor
References
74
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Tay-Kwamya

The Debtor, Tay-Kwamya, filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy on October 18, 2006. The Chapter 7 Trustee requested dismissal due to the Debtor's failure to provide all required payment advices within 60 days of filing, as mandated by 11 U.S.C. § 521(a)(l)(B)(iv) and General Order M-315. The Debtor explained that two pay stubs were missing but that her other submitted pay stubs and sworn affidavit provided sufficient "other evidence of payment." The Court found that the Debtor had met the statutory requirements, considering her fixed hourly wage and the likely minimal impact of the missing documents on creditors. Consequently, the Court denied the Chapter 7 Trustee's request for dismissal.

BankruptcyChapter 7Debtor's DutiesPayment AdvicesSection 521(a)(1)(B)(iv)Automatic DismissalGeneral Order M-315Evidentiary RequirementsTrustee RequestDismissal Denied
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 979 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