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

Holick v. Cellular Sales of New York, LLC

Plaintiffs, a group of Sales Representatives, initiated an action against defendants Cellular Sales of Knoxville, Inc. and Cellular Sales of New York, L.L.C., alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York State Labor Law. They claimed misclassification as independent contractors, which led to a deprivation of guaranteed compensation, including minimum wage and overtime. Defendants responded with motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction, and alternatively, to compel mediation/arbitration based on clauses in the sales agreements. The Court denied the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, affirming its power to adjudicate FLSA claims. However, it granted the defendants' motion to compel arbitration, determining that the mediation clauses were valid, unwaived, and that FLSA claims are arbitrable under federal law, leading to the dismissal of the complaint without prejudice. All other pending motions, including plaintiffs' request for conditional collective action certification, were subsequently denied as moot.

FLSALabor LawMisclassificationIndependent ContractorCollective ActionArbitrationMediationSubject Matter JurisdictionPersonal JurisdictionRule 12(b)(1)
References
28
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. 03-99-00265-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 27, 2000

Ford Motor Company Freightliner Truck Corporation Sterling Truck Corporation Metro Ford Truck Sales, Inc. And Daniel H. Foley, Jr./Motor Vehicle Board of the Texas Department of Transportation v. Motor Vehicle Board, Texas Department of Transportation/Metro Ford Truck Sales, Inc. Daniel H. Foley, Jr. Freightliner Truck Corporation Sterling Truck Corporation And Ford Motor Company

This case involves an appeal from a district court judgment concerning an order from the Motor Vehicle Board of the Texas Department of Transportation. The dispute originated from Ford's proposed termination of Metro Ford Truck Sales, Inc.'s franchise due to alleged abuse of Ford's Competitive Price Assistance (CPA) program, where Metro misrepresented customer names to obtain higher discounts. The Board found good cause for termination but imposed a conditional termination remedy requiring the sale of Metro's dealership. The Court of Appeals affirmed the termination for good cause, the refusal to transfer the dealership to Eileen Beard, and the denial of Ford's requested chargeback expenses. However, it reversed and remanded the district court's affirmation of the Board's conditional termination remedy, finding it unlawful.

Franchise TerminationDealer FraudCPA Program AbuseStatutory InterpretationAdministrative LawMotor Vehicle BoardEquitable EstoppelGood Cause TerminationAppellate ReviewJudicial Discretion
References
33
Case No. 04-18-00064-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 26, 2018

Richard Arce v. Ken McGough and Jan McGough D/B/A K&M Auto Sales

Richard Arce appealed a summary judgment ruling in favor of Ken McGough and Jan McGough d/b/a K&M Auto Sales after a tree branch fell on him at K&M's business. Arce sued for injuries, initially alleging premises liability and then amending his petition to focus on employer's negligence. K&M filed traditional and no-evidence motions for summary judgment, arguing Arce was an invitee and had no evidence to support premises liability. The appellate court determined that Arce's claim, despite being styled as negligence, fundamentally arose from a premises defect. Because Arce failed to present any evidence in response to K&M's no-evidence summary judgment motion, the trial court's decision to grant summary judgment was affirmed.

Summary judgmentPremises liabilityEmployer's negligenceContract workerInviteesDuty of careNo-evidence motionAppellate reviewFalling tree branchProperty condition
References
7
Case No. 05-15-00837-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 26, 2016

J&M Sales of Texas, LLC v. Anette H. Sams

Anette H. Sams sued J&M Sales of Texas, LLC for negligence after sustaining an injury from a falling shelf in a retail store. Sams secured a default judgment for $45,350.79 against J&M Sales. J&M Sales subsequently moved for a new trial, asserting that their failure to file an answer was not intentional or due to conscious indifference, that they possessed a meritorious defense based on Sams's potential contributory negligence, and that a new trial would not cause undue delay or injury to Sams. The trial court denied this motion. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, concluding that J&M Sales had successfully met all three elements of the Craddock standard for granting a new trial, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Negligence ClaimDefault JudgmentMotion for New TrialAbuse of DiscretionCraddock StandardMeritorious DefenseConscious IndifferenceContributory NegligenceAppellate ReviewTexas Civil Procedure
References
9
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Northeastern Stud Welding Corp. v. Webster

A New York corporation, previously certified as a woman-owned business enterprise, was denied recertification in 1992, leading to a CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the determination. The court rejected claims of inadequate explanation and procedural irregularities, finding the Hearing Officer's rationale, adopted by the Executive Director, provided sufficient basis for judicial review, and the hearing procedures were within discretion. Substantial evidence supported the denial of recertification, as control over petitioner's daily operations, including critical decisions on bidding, marketing, sales, purchasing, hiring, and field supervision, was shared between the sole shareholder Jean Zelezniak, her husband, and another employee. This shared control, coupled with Zelezniak's lack of expertise and the company's formation structure, led to the conclusion that the business was family-owned and not independently controlled by Zelezniak as required by regulations for woman-owned business enterprise status. Consequently, the determination to deny recertification was confirmed, and the petition was dismissed.

Woman-owned business enterpriseRecertification denialCPLR Article 78Administrative reviewBusiness controlShareholder controlFamily-owned businessProcedural due processJudicial reviewExecutive Law
References
4
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

MacHinery Sales Co. v. Diamondcut Forestry Products, LLC

Machinery Sales Co., Inc. filed an action for rescission of a contract to purchase a chip mill, alleging fraudulent misrepresentation by Diamondcut Forestry Products, LLC, Columbia Trading, Inc., and Champion International Corporation regarding the mill's value and included items. Following a bench trial, the court found no fraud and entered judgment for the defendants. Machinery Sales appealed, presenting issues concerning fraudulent inducement, agency imputation, entitlement to rescission, and damages. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the evidence did not preponderate against the finding that defendants did not fraudulently induce the contract.

Rescission of ContractFraudulent MisrepresentationChip Mill SaleContract DisputeBench TrialAppellate ReviewAffirmed JudgmentTennessee LawReal Estate AppraisalAgency Law
References
10
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 07664 [166 AD3d 438]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 13, 2018

Matter of NRT N.Y. LLC v. Spell

This case concerns an appeal regarding the vacatur of an arbitration award. Petitioner NRT New York LLC, doing business as Citihabitats, sought a sales commission from respondents Suzy and Charles Spell under an Exclusive Agency to Lease Agreement. The agreement outlined conditions for a sales commission if the apartment was sold to a tenant procured by Citihabitats. The arbitrator denied Citihabitats' claim, finding no commission due as the Farhats occupied on a month-to-month basis, not an extension of the lease. The Supreme Court vacated this award, but the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed that decision, denied the motion to vacate, and confirmed the arbitration award, holding that the arbitrator's conclusion was not irrational or contrary to public policy.

Arbitration AwardVacaturSales CommissionReal Estate AgreementExclusive Agency to LeaseLease Term ExpirationMonth-to-Month TenancyAppellate ReviewJudicial Deference to ArbitratorCPLR 7511
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 2,318 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