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

Wurlitzer Co. v. Electrokey, Inc.

This is a patent infringement case concerning electronic pianos. The plaintiff, Wurlitzer, sued Electrokey, Rhythm Band, Moore, Chicago Musical Instrument, and Nippon Columbia for infringing four patents: Miessner '363, Miessner '512, Andersen '053, and Bode '997. The court found that the defendants' electronic pianos infringed claims of the Miessner '363 and Miessner '512 patents. However, the court found no infringement of the Andersen '053 patent and declared the Bode '997 patent invalid for lack of novelty. An injunction was granted against further infringement of the two Miessner patents, and the infringement by Nippon Columbia was deemed willful, laying a predicate for increased damages.

Patent InfringementElectronic PianoMusical InstrumentsPatent ValidityWillful InfringementInjunctionDamagesPatent LawMiessner PatentAndersen Patent
References
12
Case No. W2017-00551-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 28, 2017

In Re: Last Will and Testament of Mary Theresse Erde

This case is a will contest concerning the holographic will of Mary Theresse Erde. Appellant Carl Barton challenged the will, claiming lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence by Beneficiary Deborah Lawson. The trial court denied Barton's motion to set aside the order admitting the will to probate and found that Decedent possessed testamentary capacity and that the presumption of undue influence was rebutted by clear and convincing evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in striking Barton's amended counter-petition due to futility and upholding the findings regarding testamentary capacity and the rebuttal of undue influence through independent legal advice and lack of suspicious circumstances.

Will contestHolographic willTestamentary capacityUndue influenceConfidential relationshipIndependent legal adviceFutility of amendmentRule 15.01 Tennessee Civil ProcedureRule 60.02 Tennessee Civil ProcedureAppellate review
References
60
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

John R. Wills, Jr. v. The City of Memphis

John R. Wills, Jr., sought to subdivide his property, Lot 94, in the Belle Meade Subdivision into two lots, but his application was denied by the Memphis and Shelby County Land Use Control Board and the Memphis City Council. Wills subsequently filed a petition for writ of certiorari, leading the Chancery Court of Shelby County to reverse the City Council's decision and remand the case for a rehearing. The City of Memphis and the Memphis City Council appealed this decision. The appellate court identified an ambiguity in the Unified Development Code (UDC) regarding the applicability of "contextual infill development standards" (Section 3.9.2) to Wills' property, specifically concerning the definition of "development" in the context of surrounding properties established before 1950. The court concluded that the trial court's ruling, which stated Wills' application complied with all UDC provisions, was premature. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed in part and vacated in part the trial court's order, remanding the case for further proceedings to the City Council to definitively interpret and apply UDC Section 3.9.2(B)(1) based on the existing record.

ZoningSubdivision RegulationsLand Use ControlUnified Development Code (UDC)Administrative ReviewWrit of CertiorariAppellate ReviewArbitrary and Capricious DecisionStatutory InterpretationRemand Order
References
44
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 08300 [145 AD3d 492]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 08, 2016

Netzahuall v. All Will LLC

This case concerns an appeal regarding the denial of defendant Lime Light's cross-motion to dismiss common-law indemnification claims brought by defendant All Will LLC. The plaintiff, Gabriel Netzahuall, an employee of Lime Light, sustained injuries but not a "grave injury" as defined by Workers' Compensation Law § 11. Although the Workers' Compensation Board previously determined Lime Light to be the plaintiff's employer, the Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's finding that All Will, the premises owner, was not collaterally estopped from challenging this determination. The court reasoned that All Will was not a party to the prior Workers' Compensation proceeding and therefore did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue of plaintiff's employer.

indemnificationcollateral estoppelWorkers' Compensation Lawemployer-employee relationshipgrave injurypremises liabilityappellate practicestatutory interpretationprivity of partieslitigation opportunity
References
4
Case No. W2024-01234-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 18, 2025

Celeste Lachapelle as the beneficiary of the will of James Russell Pace v. Blanchard E. Tual

Appellant Celeste LaChapelle sued the law firm Tual Graves, PLLC, and attorney Blanchard E. Tual for professional negligence. LaChapelle alleged that the firm negligently prepared a will for her fiancé, James Russell Pace, which was later invalidated in Mississippi due to improper execution. The trial court granted summary judgment for the law firm, concluding that LaChapelle's claim accrued in May 2021 when she had to respond to the will contest, thereby exceeding the one-year statute of limitations. This appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no reversible error, and agreed that the claim accrued when LaChapelle incurred expenses defending the will. The court also rejected the argument of fraudulent concealment by the appellees, stating that reasonable diligence would have led to the discovery of the injury earlier.

Professional negligenceLegal malpracticeStatute of limitationsDiscovery ruleWill contestProbate lawFraudulent concealmentSummary judgmentAppellate reviewAccrual of claim
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 02, 2007

Malletier v. Dooney & Bourke, Inc.

Louis Vuitton Malletier initiated an action against Dooney & Bourke, Inc., alleging trademark infringement, dilution, and unfair competition under state and federal laws. The Court addressed two key legal questions: the necessity of proving willful deceit for profit recovery in federal trademark infringement claims under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), and the requirement of showing actual damages for monetary relief in federal dilution claims under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c). The District Court affirmed both requirements, holding that a finding of the defendant's willful deceptiveness is a prerequisite for awarding profits in trademark infringement suits, thereby upholding the George Basch Co. v. Blue Coral, Inc. precedent. Additionally, the court ruled that the Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006 (TDRA) is not retroactively applicable to monetary relief for dilution claims, necessitating proof of actual dilution for pre-TDRA conduct. Consequently, Louis Vuitton must establish willful deceit to recover Dooney & Bourke's profits and actual dilution to be entitled to monetary relief on its federal dilution claim.

Trademark InfringementTrademark DilutionUnfair CompetitionLanham ActWillful DeceptionProfit AwardsMonetary ReliefRetroactivityTrademark Dilution Revision ActFederal Law
References
27
Case No. 89 Civ. 4736 (BN)
Regular Panel Decision

Gucci America, Inc. v. Rebecca Gold Enterprises, Inc.

This case involves a de novo review by District Judge Newman of a Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation regarding trademark infringement. Plaintiff Gucci America, Inc. sued Rebecca Gold Enterprises, Rebecca Yahoudai, and Hertsel Yahoudai for manufacturing and distributing jewelry with a counterfeit "GG" logo. Magistrate Judge Roberts found willful infringement and recommended damages, attorney's fees, and a permanent injunction. Defendants objected to these findings, but Judge Newman affirmed the Magistrate Judge's report in all respects, upholding the findings of willful infringement, the calculation of defendants' profits, and the award of Gucci's attorney's fees and costs. The court also denied defendants' demand for costs.

Trademark InfringementUnfair CompetitionLanham ActWillful InfringementDamagesAttorney FeesMagistrate Judge ReportDe Novo ReviewBusiness Records ExceptionEvidentiary Rulings
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC

This Memorandum-Decision and Order addresses post-trial motions in a patent infringement case where a jury found Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC willfully infringed PPC Broadband, Inc.'s patents. The court denied Corning's motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial, upholding the jury's verdict of willful infringement and the awarded $23.85 million royalty. The court also granted PPC's motion for summary judgment, dismissing Corning's inequitable conduct defense, citing a failure to prove specific intent to deceive or materiality. Several other defenses by Corning were abandoned or dismissed, while the equitable defenses of equitable estoppel and laches are reserved for a future bench trial.

Patent InfringementWillful InfringementInequitable ConductSummary JudgmentNew TrialJudgment as a Matter of LawRoyalty AwardDamagesPatent LawFederal Procedure
References
41
Case No. 14-cv-4895
Regular Panel Decision

Municipal Credit Union v. Queens Auto Mall, Inc.

This case concerns a trademark infringement action brought by Municipal Credit Union (MCU) against Queens Auto Mall, Inc., a used car dealership, and its owner, Stylianou. The defendants were found to have willfully infringed MCU's distinctive service mark by prominently displaying an identical mark on their dealership's awning for several years. Despite multiple cease and desist letters, the defendants' delayed response led to a finding of willful infringement. The court awarded MCU $330,000 in statutory damages, $1,640.25 in court costs, and $70,612.50 in attorney’s fees. Additionally, a permanent injunction was issued to prevent the defendants from any further use of the plaintiff's service mark, aiming to deter future misconduct and compensate the plaintiff.

Trademark infringementWillful infringementStatutory damagesLanham ActAttorney's feesPermanent injunctionDefault judgmentConsumer confusionDisgorgement of profitsCredit union
References
31
Case No. 02-12-00318-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 13, 2013

Will Williams v. America First Lloyds Insurance

Will Williams appealed the trial court's order granting summary judgment to America First Lloyds Insurance regarding his workers' compensation claim. Williams challenged a 0% impairment rating for a workplace injury, contending it should be 19%. The trial court granted summary judgment based on Williams's failure to respond to requests for admissions, which were subsequently deemed admitted. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, finding no violation of due process rights, as Williams demonstrated a callous disregard for responding to the requests and provided no good cause for his inaction or evidence of fraud.

Workers' CompensationSummary JudgmentImpairment RatingDeemed AdmissionsDue ProcessAppellate ReviewMedical EvidenceTexas LawCivil ProcedureHernia Injury
References
26
Showing 1-10 of 1,828 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