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

Craftmatic Comfort Manufacturing Corp. v. New York State Tax Commission

Petitioner, a Pennsylvania corporation selling adjustable beds, challenged a sales and use tax assessment for the period of March 1978 to February 1981. The corporation argued that sales of its beds, when prescribed by a physician, should be exempt as medical equipment under Tax Law § 1115 (a) (3). The respondent's determination disallowed this exemption, claiming the beds were not primarily used for medical purposes. The court, however, found the respondent's decision lacked substantial evidence, citing approvals from the Workers’ Compensation Board, Medicare, and the FDA, all of which classified the beds as medical devices or hospital beds. Consequently, the court annulled the portion of the determination denying the exemption for prescription sales and remitted the case for further proceedings.

Sales TaxUse TaxMedical Equipment ExemptionHospital BedsPhysician's PrescriptionSubstantial EvidenceTax LawCPLR Article 78Administrative ReviewTax Assessment
References
5
Case No. 03-14-00821-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 2014

Ha Duong Nhu and D&H Restaurant Equipment v. Hunan Ranch Corporation

This case is a restricted appeal filed by Duong Nhu Ha and D&H Restaurant Equipment against Hunan Ranch Corporation, challenging a no-answer default judgment. The default judgment, issued by the 201st District Court of Travis County, awarded Hunan Ranch Corporation $38,663.81 in unliquidated damages for breach of contract related to the installation of a commercial wok range, plus $6,693.75 in attorney's fees. Appellants argue that there is error on the face of the record due to the absence of material exhibits, such as the alleged purchase order and sales reports, and the lack of a court reporter's record from the default judgment hearing. They further contend that Hunan Ranch Corporation used an incorrect measure for damages (lost sales instead of lost profits), failed to prove profitability, and did not establish a causal nexus between the alleged breach and the claimed damages. Consequently, Appellants seek to reverse the trial court's judgment and remand the case for a new trial.

Contract DisputeDefault JudgmentRestricted AppealUnliquidated DamagesLost ProfitsLost SalesAttorney FeesAppellate ReviewEvidentiary HearingCourt Reporter Record
References
35
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Startex First Equipment, Ltd. v. Aelina Enterprises Inc.

This case involves a dispute over the ownership of commercial real property in Bastrop County, Texas. Appellant Startex First Equipment, Ltd., appealed a trial court’s summary judgment that granted title to appellee Aelina Enterprises, Inc. The core issue was whether Startex's right of first refusal, originally granted to Pioneer Oil Company in a 1970 Lease and Operating Agreement, survived subsequent property sales and was superior to Aelina's later-acquired purchase option. The appellate court determined that the right of first refusal, explicitly stating that sales were 'subject to the terms of this lease,' indeed survived previous property transfers and was properly assigned to Startex. Consequently, the court found Startex's right to be superior to Aelina's purchase option, reversing the district court's decision and rendering judgment in favor of Startex.

real propertyright of first refusalpurchase optioncontract interpretationsummary judgmentappealproperty ownershipcommercial leaseassignability of rightsconstructive notice
References
17
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. 529807
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 04, 2020

Matter of McGee v. Johnson Equip. Sales & Serv.

Claimant, a truck driver, was injured in Ohio when her tractor-trailer rolled over. The employer and its carrier controverted her workers' compensation claim, alleging she willfully intended to cause her injury and made false statements regarding her medical history. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the establishment of the claim, finding her actions, though demonstrating bad judgment, did not constitute willful intent to injure herself. The Board also found no violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a, crediting her testimony. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's amended decision.

Workers' Compensation ClaimTrucking AccidentOhio AccidentWillful Intent to InjureReckless DrivingDrug ScreenCocaine PresencePreexisting Back ConditionAggravation of InjuryFraud Allegation
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reich v. Manhattan Boiler & Equipment Corp.

Joseph Kaban was injured in a 1972 automobile accident during employment. He received workers' compensation benefits, and he and his wife sued other parties, Thompson and Mazza, who then brought a third-party action against Kaban's employer, Manhattan Boiler & Equipment Corp. (Manhattan). Due to the insolvency of Thompson and Mazza, the Kabans' judgment went uncollected. In 1992, attorney Louis S. Reich, as an assignee, attempted to collect on the judgment from Manhattan using a Feldman-type loan agreement. The Court of Appeals, however, reversed the lower court's decision, ruling that applying the Feldman mechanism in cases where the third-party defendant is the plaintiff's employer directly conflicts with the public policy of workers' compensation exclusivity, which is the employee's sole remedy for workplace injuries. The Court dismissed the complaint, affirming that such arrangements cannot circumvent the limitations of an employer's liability for contribution.

Workers' Compensation ExclusivityThird-Party ActionContribution ClaimIndemnificationLoan AgreementSatisfaction of JudgmentEmployer LiabilityPublic PolicyStatutory InterpretationPersonal Injury
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jaramillo v. Weyerhaeuser Co.

Plaintiff Mario Miguel Jaramillo sustained serious injuries while operating an industrial Flexo Folder Gluer machine. The machine was purchased used by his employer, Universal Glenwood Packaging Products Corporation, from Weyerhaeuser Company. Jaramillo filed a strict products liability claim against Weyerhaeuser, alleging the machine was defective due to the lack of safety devices. The central issue, certified by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals to the New York Court of Appeals, was whether Weyerhaeuser, as a seller of used equipment, qualified as a 'regular seller' subject to strict liability under New York law. Reviewing prior precedents like Sukljian v Ross & Son Co. and Stiles v Batavia Atomic Horseshoes, the court analyzed the policy considerations behind imposing strict liability. The court concluded that Weyerhaeuser's incidental sales of used, third-hand equipment as surplus did not meet the criteria for a 'regular seller' and would not serve the public policy goals of strict products liability, answering the certified question in the negative.

Strict Products LiabilityCasual Seller DoctrineOrdinary Seller DoctrineUsed Goods LiabilityCertified QuestionNew York LawIndustrial Machinery AccidentWorkplace InjuryCorporate Surplus SalesProduct Defect
References
10
Case No. 03-05-00455-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 14, 2006

Startex First Equipment, Ltd. v. Aelina Enterprises, Inc.

This appeal arises from a dispute over the ownership of a .384-acre tract of commercial real property. Appellant Startex First Equipment, Ltd., appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of appellee Aelina Enterprises, Inc., which granted Aelina title to the property. The core issue was whether Startex's right of first refusal, originating from a 1970 Lease and Operating Agreement, survived previous sales of the property and was superior to Aelina's subsequent purchase option. The appellate court found that the explicit language in the Lease Agreement ensured the survival and assignability of the right of first refusal, making Startex's right superior. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's decision and rendered judgment in favor of Startex.

Right of First RefusalReal Property DisputeContract InterpretationSummary Judgment AppealLease AgreementPurchase OptionAssignability of RightsSuperiority of RightsConstructive NoticeInquiry Notice
References
15
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 03615
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 2025

Breslin v. Access Auto Sales & Serv., LLC

Matthew M. Breslin, a cable technician, was injured after falling from an extension ladder while installing new cable service. He and his wife filed an action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), 200, and common-law negligence against Access Auto Sales, Spectrum, and National Grid entities. The Supreme Court denied all parties' motions for summary judgment, citing numerous questions of fact. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order, granting summary judgment to defendants for claims under Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence, and dismissing Access Auto's cross-claims for indemnification/contribution, finding no evidence of their negligence or supervisory control. However, the denials of summary judgment for Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims were affirmed, as factual disputes remained regarding the adequacy of safety equipment and the proximate cause of the accident.

Labor Law Section 240(1)Labor Law Section 241(6)Labor Law Section 200Common-law negligenceSummary judgmentLadder accidentElevation-related hazardConstruction workProximate causeIndemnification
References
30
Showing 1-10 of 3,864 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