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

Commerce Holding Co., Inc. v. Buckstone

Plaintiff Commerce Holding Company, Inc. sued defendants Stanley and Herbert Buckstone, the Roth defendants (executors of Jerrold Roth's estate), and Tronic Plating Company, Inc. for environmental contamination under CERCLA, RCRA, and various state common law claims related to a hazardous waste site in Farmingdale, New York. Commerce, as the property owner, incurred response costs under an EPA consent order due to Tronic's past discharge of toxic substances and sought relief from the defendants. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, and Commerce cross-moved for partial summary judgment on CERCLA liability. The Court dismissed the pendent state claims without prejudice, denied the motion to dismiss the CERCLA claim, and deferred decision on the RCRA claim pending further briefing. Commerce's motion for partial summary judgment was denied without prejudice.

Environmental LawCERCLARCRAHazardous Waste SitePollution LiabilityMotion to DismissSummary JudgmentPendent JurisdictionResponse CostsNational Contingency Plan
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bernard v. Commerce Drug Co., Inc.

Plaintiff Peter S. Bernard brought claims against Commerce Drug Company and Del Laboratories, Inc. for trademark violations under the Lanham Act and state law concerning the product 'Arthriticare.' Defendants moved for partial summary judgment on trademark infringement and judgment on the pleadings for fraudulent trademark registration, while plaintiff cross-moved for partial summary judgment. The court found plaintiff's 'Arthriticare' mark to be descriptive and lacking secondary meaning, thus granting defendants' motion for summary judgment on the trademark infringement claim. The claim for fraudulent trademark registration was dismissed as defendants' mark was not registered. All remaining state and common law claims were dismissed due to the absence of federal claims and diversity jurisdiction.

Trademark InfringementLanham ActSummary JudgmentJudgment on PleadingsDescriptive TrademarkSecondary MeaningFraudulent RegistrationPendent JurisdictionDiversity JurisdictionUnregistered Mark
References
14
Case No. M2010-01199-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 02, 2011

Administrative Resources, Inc. v. Tennessee Department of Commerce and Insurance

Administrative Resources, Inc. (ARI) appealed the denial of its staff leasing company license by the Tennessee Department of Commerce and Insurance (DCI). The DCI based its denial on a letter from the Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development (DOL) alleging delinquent unemployment taxes, without providing supporting documentation. The Chancery Court affirmed DCI's decision. The Court of Appeals found that DCI's decision was not supported by substantial and material evidence and was arbitrary due to the lack of documentation from DOL. Consequently, the appellate court vacated the trial court's decision and remanded the case to DCI for reconsideration.

staff leasing company licenseadministrative reviewcommon law certioraristatutory certiorariDepartment of Commerce and InsuranceDepartment of Laborunemployment taxesfinancial responsibilityarbitrary decisionsubstantial and material evidence
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 03, 2017

Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. Hugler

This case involves a challenge by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Indexed Annuity Leadership Council, and the American Council of Life Insurers against three rules published by the Department of Labor. These rules redefine 'fiduciary' under ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code, amend Prohibited Transaction Exemption 84-24, and establish the Best Interest Contract Exemption (BICE). Plaintiffs argued that the DOL exceeded its statutory authority, impermissibly created a private right of action, and violated the Administrative Procedure Act, the First Amendment, and the Federal Arbitration Act. The Court denied Plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment and granted the Defendants' motion, finding the DOL's rules to be a permissible and reasonable exercise of its authority.

ERISAFiduciary DutyInvestment AdviceAnnuitiesDepartment of LaborSummary JudgmentRegulatory LawAdministrative LawProhibited TransactionsFinancial Regulations
References
92
Case No. M2011-02746-COA-R3-CV / 1018991
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 26, 2012

Advantage Personnel Consultants, Inc. v. Tennessee Department of Commerce

This case involves a dispute between Advantage Personnel Consultants, Inc. (insured) and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (insurer) regarding the proper classification of employees for workers' compensation insurance premiums. Advantage disputed Liberty's reclassification of its employees from 'manufacture of small tools' (3113) to 'machine shop' (3632), and later to 'construction or agricultural machinery mfg.' (3507) for employees working at TAG Manufacturing Company. Advantage contended the correct classification was 'boilermaking' (3620). The Department of Commerce and Insurance ruled in favor of the insurer (Liberty), classifying the work as 3507, which was affirmed by the Chancery Court for Davidson County and subsequently by the Court of Appeals, finding substantial and material evidence to support the Commissioner's decision.

Workers' CompensationInsurance ClassificationEmployee ClassificationPremium AuditAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceMaterial EvidenceStatutory InterpretationCode Classification
References
7
Case No. 2014-1083 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 21, 2017

VNP Acupuncture, P.C. v. American Commerce Ins. Co.

Plaintiff VNP Acupuncture, P.C., acting as an assignee, initiated this action to recover first-party no-fault benefits for services provided to eight assignors following three separate motor vehicle accidents. The defendant, American Commerce Insurance Company, cross-moved to sever several causes of action (first, third through fifth, and seventh), arguing they stemmed from different accidents and involved distinct legal and factual questions. The Civil Court of the City of New York initially denied the defendant's severance request. Upon appeal, the Appellate Term, Second Department, determined that the claims related to the severed causes of action, specifically concerning lack of medical necessity, were factually and legally dissimilar to the remaining claims about whether injuries arose from an insured incident. Consequently, the Appellate Term reversed the lower court's decision and granted the defendant's cross-motion to sever the specified causes of action.

No-fault benefitsMotor Vehicle AccidentsSeverance of ActionsMedical NecessityIndependent Medical ExaminationAppellate ReviewCivil ProcedureAssigneeInsurance LawTrial Court Reversal
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 1999

Concerned Citizens of Valley Stream, Inc. v. Bond

The petitioners appealed a Supreme Court judgment that denied their petition to review a determination by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Incorporated Village of Valley Stream. The Board had conditionally granted Nathan Serota's application for site plan approval. Petitioners contended that this decision violated the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the Board had complied with SEQRA's substantive and procedural requirements by identifying environmental concerns, taking a "hard look" at them, and providing a "reasoned elaboration" for its determination, specifically addressing issues like flooding, drainage, and increased traffic.

CPLR Article 78SEQRASite Plan ApprovalZoning Board of AppealsEnvironmental ReviewNassau CountyJudicial ReviewArbitrary and CapriciousAbuse of DiscretionEnvironmental Impact Statement
References
6
Case No. 05-97-01076-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Grizzle Ex Rel. Grizzle v. Texas Commerce Bank, N.A.

Linda Grizzle, representing her minor daughter and a proposed class, sued Frost National Bank and Texas Commerce Bank, N.A., alleging damages to trust accounts caused by a bank merger and subsequent liquidation and reinvestment of funds. The claims included breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and deceptive trade practices. The trial court granted summary judgment for the banks and struck additional class representatives. On appeal, the court reversed the striking of the interventions, allowing other class representatives to join. It also reversed most of the summary judgments in favor of the banks, identifying outstanding factual issues concerning damages and the applicability of exculpatory clauses. The court affirmed that a DTPA tender for individual damages did not moot the class action. The case has been remanded for further proceedings.

Class ActionTrust AccountsBank MergerFiduciary DutySummary JudgmentDTPAInterventionBreach of ContractNegligenceFraud
References
78
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Interstate Commerce Commission v. Atlas Van Lines, Inc.

The Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) filed suit against Atlas Van Lines, Inc. for violating regulations related to owner-operator payments and escrow funds, stemming from issues with its agent, Thomas Van & Storage, Inc., which subsequently declared bankruptcy. Atlas conceded liability for past regulatory breaches but argued against a general injunction, contending that the issues with the bankrupt agent were moot and that it had implemented a new compliance program. The Court, however, found that Atlas had a history of consistent non-compliance, indicating a significant risk of future violations. Consequently, the Court granted the ICC's motion for summary judgment and issued a permanent injunction against Atlas to prevent further violations of ICC regulations.

Interstate Commerce CommissionAtlas Van LinesSummary JudgmentPermanent InjunctionMotor CarrierOwner-OperatorLeasing RegulationsEscrow FundsRegulatory ComplianceBankruptcy
References
27
Case No. M2016-02231-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 11, 2017

Charles E. Cunningham v. Tennessee Department of Commerce And Insurance, Insurance Division

This appeal concerns the Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Commerce and Insurance's decision to fine and revoke insurance agent Charles E. Cunningham's license for six statutory violations, including misappropriating premiums and misrepresenting policy terms. Cunningham challenged the decision in the Chancery Court for Davidson County, which affirmed the Commissioner's findings. He then appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals, arguing insufficient evidence and improper punishment. The Court of Appeals, upon review, determined that substantial and material evidence supported the Commissioner's conclusions regarding Cunningham's willful violations. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding both the license revocation and the civil penalty.

Insurance FraudLicense RevocationCivil PenaltyAdministrative LawUnfair Trade PracticesFiduciary Duty ViolationMisappropriation of FundsTennessee LawInsurance Agent MisconductAppellate Review
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 244 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