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

Wells v. Colvin

The plaintiff, Sherry A. Wells, sought judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner's decision to deny her application for disability insurance benefits. U.S. District Judge Elizabeth A. Wolford reviewed the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) decision and the parties' opposing motions for judgment on the pleadings. The Court found that the Commissioner's decision was supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with the applicable legal standards. Specifically, the ALJ's findings regarding Wells' severe impairments (diabetes mellitus, fibromyalgia, adjustment disorder), residual functional capacity (sedentary work), and ability to perform past relevant work were upheld. Consequently, the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted, Wells' motion was denied, and her complaint was dismissed with prejudice.

Disability BenefitsSocial Security AppealsResidual Functional CapacityALJ Credibility AssessmentMedical NoncomplianceDiabetes MellitusFibromyalgiaAdjustment DisorderConsultative ExaminationTreating Physician Opinion
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Feltman v. Kossoff & Kossoff LLP (In re TS Emp't, Inc.)

The case involves a Chapter 11 Trustee, James S. Feltman, for TS Employment, Inc. (TSE), who filed a second amended complaint against Kossoff & Kossoff LLP and Irwin Kossoff. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the Trustee's claims were barred by the Wagoner rule, which typically prevents a bankrupt corporation from suing third parties for fraud if corporate managers assisted in the fraud. The core issue is whether the defendants qualify as 'non-statutory insiders' to bypass the Wagoner rule's application. The Trustee alleged that the defendants effectively acted as TSE's CFO or Treasurer, controlling financial reporting and accounting, despite lacking formal titles. The Court, reviewing the allegations, concluded that the Second Amended Complaint sufficiently pleaded facts to support the inference that the defendants were non-statutory insiders, exercising significant control over TSE's financial operations. Therefore, the Court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss, allowing the Trustee to proceed with the case.

Bankruptcy LawMotion to DismissWagoner RuleInsider ExceptionNon-Statutory InsiderFiduciary DutyCorporate ControlAccounting FraudChapter 11Trustee Standing
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Union of Needletrades, Industrial & Textile Employees v. May Department Stores Co.

The plaintiffs, Union of Needle-trades, Industrial and Textile Workers (UNITE) and others, sued May Department Stores Company (May) alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC rules related to proxy solicitations. UNITE sought relief claiming May improperly exercised discretionary voting authority and made false or misleading statements in its proxy materials concerning an 'anti-poison pill proposal'. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim and failure to plead fraud with particularity. The court granted May's motion, concluding that May lawfully exercised its discretionary authority under SEC Rule 14a-4(c)(1) and that UNITE failed to allege any actionable false or misleading statements under SEC Rule 14a-9. The complaint was dismissed.

Securities LawProxy SolicitationShareholder RightsMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6)Rule 9(b)Discretionary AuthorityMisleading StatementsSecurities Exchange ActSEC Rules
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Isufi v. Prometal Construction, Inc.

Plaintiffs, a class of workers, sued Pro-Metal Construction, Inc. and STV Construction, Inc. in state court for unpaid prevailing wages, benefits, and overtime related to a federally-funded project, asserting state common and statutory law claims. Defendants removed the case to federal court, arguing federal question jurisdiction due to the applicability of the federal Davis-Bacon Act and its preemption of state law claims. Plaintiffs moved to remand the case back to state court. The court examined the doctrines of federal question jurisdiction, the well-pleaded complaint rule, and the artful pleading doctrine, clarifying that preemption generally serves as a defense and not a basis for removal unless it constitutes 'complete preemption,' which the Davis-Bacon Act does not provide. The court determined that the plaintiffs' complaint did not raise a substantial federal issue and was not artfully pleaded to avoid federal jurisdiction. Consequently, the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, and the plaintiffs' motion to remand the action to state court was granted.

Wage DisputePrevailing WagesOvertimeFederal JurisdictionRemoval and RemandDavis-Bacon ActFederal PreemptionState Law ClaimsContract LawArtful Pleading
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re LILCO Securities Litigation

The case involves plaintiff shareholders of LILCO who filed a consolidated class action against LILCO, its corporate officers and directors, a group of underwriters, and the accounting firm Price Waterhouse. The complaint alleged violations of the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and common law claims of fraud and negligent misrepresentation. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on various grounds, including failure to plead fraud with particularity under Rule 9(b) and failure to state a claim. The court denied the defendants' motions, clarifying that fraud particularity is not required for Section 11 claims and finding the Section 10(b) claim adequately pleaded. While the common law fraud claim was deemed overbroad and limited, the court confirmed its pendent jurisdiction over state law claims, ensuring the case proceeds.

Securities LitigationClass ActionMotion to DismissRule 9(b)Securities FraudNegligent MisrepresentationPendent JurisdictionCorporate GovernanceInvestment BankingAccounting Malpractice
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wells v. Chattanooga Bakery, Inc.

Plaintiff Bradley Wells sued Chattanooga Bakery, Inc. (CBI) and Dr. Pepper/Seven Up, Inc. (DPSU) for alleged unlawful use of his image in advertising, asserting claims under the Tennessee Personal Rights Protection Act, Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, and common law. The photograph, taken over thirty years prior, featured Wells as an unidentifiable young boy. The trial court dismissed the complaint, ruling that the claims were completely preempted by the Copyright Act of 1976. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, agreeing that Wells's state law claims were based on rights equivalent to those protected by the Copyright Act, as the photograph was a copyrightable work and Wells's identity was not recognizable within it. The court found that his claims for unjust enrichment, accounting, and conversion also fell within the scope of copyright law, leading to their preemption.

Copyright ActPreemptionRight of PublicityImage RightsCommercial UsePhoto LikenessState Law ClaimsFederal PreemptionUnjust EnrichmentConsumer Protection Act
References
12
Case No. 03-21-00266-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 03, 2022

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Express Limousines, Inc. N/K/A Groovy Automotive I, Inc. And Charles Delmonico

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. appealed a district court's summary judgment granted to Express Limousines, Inc. and Charles Delmonico. Wells Fargo argued the trial court erred in finding their breach of contract claim barred by the statute of limitations. The case originated from a BusinessLine Customer Agreement where Groovy Automotive defaulted on payments and exceeded its credit limit, with the last payment occurring in August 2014. Despite Wells Fargo filing suit in January 2019, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that the four-year statute of limitations for breach of contract, which began running from the last payment date, had expired. The court also clarified that an optional acceleration clause, as cited by Wells Fargo, does not alter the accrual date for credit card indebtedness in the context of the statute of limitations.

Breach of ContractStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentCredit Card DebtOptional Acceleration ClauseAccrual DateGuarantorTexas Court of AppealsCivil Practice and Remedies Code
References
17
Case No. 06 Civ. 12878(RLC)
Regular Panel Decision

International Securities Exchange, LLC v. S & P Dow Jones Indices, LLC

International Securities Exchange, LLC and International Exchange Holdings, Inc. (ISE) sued S & P Dow Jones, LLC (Dow Jones) for a declaration of right to list options on S&P 500 and DJIA indices without a license, claiming federal copyright preemption. The lawsuit was stayed pending resolution of an identical case in Illinois state courts. The Illinois courts ruled in favor of Dow Jones, affirming its intellectual property rights and concluding that ISE's actions constituted misappropriation, a decision affirmed by the Illinois Appellate Court and upheld by the US Supreme Court's denial of certiorari. Upon returning to the current court, ISE sought to amend its complaint, while Dow Jones moved to dismiss based on res judicata. The court granted Dow Jones' motion, ruling that the Illinois judgment was binding under the Full Faith and Credit Act and Illinois preclusion rules, thus barring ISE from relitigating the preemption issue. ISE's motion to amend its complaint was denied as futile.

Copyright PreemptionRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelFull Faith and Credit ActIntellectual Property RightsStock Market IndicesOptions TradingUnfair CompetitionTortious InterferenceIllinois State Law
References
42
Case No. 1:94-CV 0484
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 04, 1995

KVHP TV PARTNERS, LTD. v. Channel 12 of Beaumont, Inc.

Plaintiffs, KVHP TV Partners, Ltd. d/b/a Fox 29 and Calcasieu Communications, Inc., filed a motion to remand their case to state court after defendants, Channel 12 of Beaumont, Inc., Texas Television Inc., Viacom International, Inc., and Multimedia Entertainment, Inc., removed it to federal court. The plaintiffs had originally sued in state court alleging tortious interference with business relations, civil conspiracy, and violations of Texas antitrust and deceptive trade practices acts. Defendants asserted federal question jurisdiction as the basis for removal. The court analyzed the well-pleaded complaint rule, the artful pleading doctrine, and the complete preemption doctrine. Finding no federal question on the face of the complaint and no applicable exceptions, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to remand the case to the 58th Judicial District Court, Jefferson County, Texas, and ordered Viacom International, Inc. and Multimedia Entertainment, Inc. to reimburse the plaintiffs for costs and attorneys' fees incurred due to the removal.

Federal JurisdictionRemoval JurisdictionRemand to State CourtWell-Pleaded Complaint RuleArtful Pleading DoctrineComplete Preemption DoctrineFederal Antitrust LawCommunications Act of 1934Tortious InterferenceCivil Conspiracy
References
25
Case No. 09-19-00101-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 12, 2019

Brian W. Justice v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, on Behalf of the Registered Holders of Bear Stearns Asset Backed Securities I Trust 2007-AC2, Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2007-AV2

Brian W. Justice appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, regarding a breach of contract and judicial foreclosure claim. Justice had defaulted on a promissory note, leading Wells Fargo to seek foreclosure on his property. Following a summary judgment for Wells Fargo, Justice, through an attorney, moved to set aside the judgment and for a new trial, arguing he lacked notice due to being out of state. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Justice failed to prove his failure to respond was not due to conscious indifference and that Wells Fargo had adequately demonstrated its status as the note holder. Additionally, the court ruled that Justice waived his objection to attorney's fees by not raising it at the trial level.

Summary Judgment AppealBreach of ContractJudicial ForeclosurePromissory Note DefaultHome EquityDefault JudgmentMotion for New TrialCraddock TestConscious IndifferenceHolder of Note
References
46
Showing 1-10 of 15,372 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