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

In re Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust Litigation

This Memorandum and Order addresses plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of a prior decision concerning a class action alleging an antitrust price-fixing conspiracy by VISA, MasterCard, and their member banks related to foreign currency conversion fees. The Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration, upholding its earlier finding that network defendants did not waive their right to arbitration because compelling arbitration would have been futile under then-existing law. Additionally, the Court denied reconsideration on several other procedural matters, including the creation of subclasses, membership of specific cardholder subclasses, representation of Diners Club and Providian cardholders, and a request for further discovery, citing the untimeliness of new arguments and the plaintiffs' failure to meet the burden of proof for class certification requirements.

Antitrust LitigationClass Action ProcedureArbitration AgreementsWaiver of ArbitrationEquitable EstoppelForeign Currency Conversion FeesReconsideration MotionSherman ActTruth in Lending ActDeceptive Trade Practices
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 28, 2005

Evans v. P.C.I. Paper Conversions, Inc.

Plaintiff, who was employed by Contemporary Personnel Staffing, Inc. and placed at P.C.I. Paper Conversions, Inc. (PCI), sustained injuries while operating an offset machine. She subsequently initiated a negligence and products liability action against PCI. PCI sought summary judgment, contending that the plaintiff was its special employee, thereby barring the action under Workers’ Compensation Law §§11 and 29. The Supreme Court denied this motion, ruling that there was a triable issue of fact concerning an agreement between Contemporary Personnel Staffing, Inc. and PCI that might have restricted PCI from employing the plaintiff in that capacity. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding no error in the lower court's conclusion.

Personal InjuryNegligenceProducts LiabilityWorkers Compensation LawSpecial Employee DoctrineSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewEmployer LiabilityTriable Issue of FactControl over Work
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

LM Business Associates, Inc. v. State

Defendant appealed a Court of Claims judgment that found them liable to claimants for conversion and negligent misrepresentation. The case stemmed from the seizure of claimants' computers during a fraud investigation into affiliated businesses, which resulted in the owner's conviction, though claimants were never charged. The seized computers, vital for claimants' businesses, were returned over two years later. The appellate court reversed the judgment, holding that defendant's seizure and retention of the computers were authorized by a valid search warrant, thus not constituting conversion. It further ruled that no 'privity-like relationship' existed between investigators and claimants to support a negligent misrepresentation claim. Lastly, the court dismissed the constitutional tort claim, noting claimants had adequate alternative remedies in other forums.

ConversionNegligent MisrepresentationSearch WarrantSeizure of PropertyState LiabilityAppellate ReviewConstitutional TortFraud InvestigationWorkers' Compensation LawCourt of Claims
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2006

Auble v. Doyle

Plaintiffs initiated an action alleging breach of contract, conversion, unjust enrichment, and negligent misrepresentation against defendant Patrie Doyle. The dispute arose from health care insurance benefits paid to Doyle's former wife between 1997 and 2002, despite her ineligibility post-divorce in 1984. The Supreme Court's initial order, which granted parts of the plaintiffs' motion and denied Doyle's cross-motion for summary judgment, was appealed. The appellate court modified the order, denying parts of the plaintiffs' motion concerning breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation. It awarded plaintiffs $57.50 for conversion and granted Doyle's cross-motion to dismiss the unjust enrichment and negligent misrepresentation claims against him. The order, as modified, was affirmed.

breach of contractconversionunjust enrichmentnegligent misrepresentationsummary judgmenthealth care benefitsinsurance eligibilitymarital statusappellate reviewcredibility assessment
References
12
Case No. 2007 NY Slip Op 31662(U)
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 26, 2007

J Squared Software, LLC v. Bernette Knitware Corp.

The Supreme Court of New York County issued a judgment on July 26, 2007, affirming a prior order from June 18, 2007. This order had denied the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on liability, granted the defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in an action for conversion of a software program, and vacated a preliminary injunction. The appellate court unanimously affirmed this decision, holding that the plaintiff lacked a cause of action for conversion as the program was obtained under a valid contract and its return was never demanded. Consequently, the preliminary injunction was properly vacated upon the dismissal of the complaint.

conversionsoftware programsummary judgmentpreliminary injunctioncontract lawlicenseecause of actionappellate reviewjudgment affirmedcomplaint dismissal
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cecil Pond Construction Co. v. Ed Bell Investment, Inc.

Cecil Pond Construction Company sued Ed Bell Investments, Inc. and Federal Insurance Company for conversion of bond dividend checks. A jury found that the defendants had redirected checks, but that Pond Construction had waived its rights to some and was estopped from recovering on all. The trial court subsequently issued a take-nothing judgment against Pond Construction. On appeal, the court determined there was no evidence to support the estoppel findings against Bell Investments, though the waiver findings for pre-acquisition checks were upheld. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the judgment in favor of Federal Insurance Company but reversed the judgment against Bell Investments, ordering Pond Construction to recover $13,587.40 from them.

ConversionAffirmative DefensesWaiverEstoppelSufficiency of EvidenceJury FindingsAppellate ReviewBond DividendsConstruction BusinessCorporate Acquisition
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Hart v. Fiber Conversion, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding a decedent employed by Fiber Conversion, Inc. The decedent suffered an acute anterior wall myocardial infarction while at work and subsequently died. Testimony from his son and widow indicated the arduous nature of his work on the day of the incident. Medical testimony supported a causal link between his work activity and the infarction. The Board found the work precipitated the myocardial infarction, leading to a work-related accident, disability, and death. The decision was affirmed, as there was substantial evidence to support the Board’s determination.

Workers' CompensationMyocardial InfarctionWork-Related InjuryCausal RelationshipMedical TestimonySubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionOccupational DiseaseDeath Claim
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Beauford v. Helmsley

This class action, led by District Judge Sweet, concerns alleged fraud and misrepresentation during the condominium conversion of the Parkchester residential complex in the Bronx. Plaintiffs claimed violations of RICO, federal securities laws, and state laws, asserting defendants omitted critical information regarding plumbing, electrical, structural defects, and asbestos in the offering plans. Defendants, including Parkchester Apartments Co. and its selling agent, moved to dismiss. The court granted the dismissal, finding plaintiffs failed to adequately allege a "pattern of racketeering activity" under RICO, as all misrepresentations originated from a single offering plan. With federal claims dismissed, the court declined jurisdiction over pendent state claims, rendering a preliminary injunction request moot.

RICOMail FraudSecurities FraudCondominium ConversionClass ActionFraudulent MisrepresentationPattern of Racketeering ActivityPendent JurisdictionMotion to DismissSouthern District of New York
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Maximum Racing, Inc.

This case involves a dispute between Glen Smith and Maximum Racing, Inc. following the termination of an agreement where Maximum Racing provided race cars for Smith's son, and Smith performed maintenance. Smith refused to return one car, claiming he was owed money for 'compensable work' and seeking to establish a lien. Maximum Racing counterclaimed for conversion. A jury found that Smith had not performed compensable work, leading the trial court to rule in favor of Maximum Racing for conversion. Smith appealed, arguing that the conversion counterclaim was waived, that his expenses constituted compensable work, and that his good-faith exercise of statutory rights was a defense to conversion. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding the conversion claim was not waived, sufficient evidence supported the jury's finding against compensable work, and good faith is not a defense to conversion under Texas law.

ConversionProperty LawLienCompensable WorkJury FindingsWaiverTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureGood Faith DefenseAppellate ReviewPersonal Property
References
19
Case No. 03-03-00277-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 13, 2004

Glen Smith v. Maximum Racing, Inc.

This appellate case concerns a dispute between Glen Smith and Maximum Racing, Inc. following the termination of an agreement to provide race cars for Smith's son. Smith refused to return a racing car, claiming Maximum Racing owed him for "compensable work" and sought a lien. Maximum Racing counterclaimed for conversion. A jury found Smith had not performed compensable work, leading the trial court to rule for Maximum Racing. On appeal, Smith challenged the waiver of the conversion claim, the finding of conversion without compensable work, and asserted a good-faith defense. The Third District Court of Appeals, at Austin, affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the conversion claim was not waived, the jury's finding was supported by evidence, and good faith is not a valid defense to conversion under Texas law.

ConversionProperty LawContract DisputeAppellate ProcedureJury VerdictWorker's LienGood Faith DefenseWaiver of ClaimsTexas Court of AppealsAutomotive Industry
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 405 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