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

MacHinery Sales Co. v. Diamondcut Forestry Products, LLC

Machinery Sales Co., Inc. filed an action for rescission of a contract to purchase a chip mill, alleging fraudulent misrepresentation by Diamondcut Forestry Products, LLC, Columbia Trading, Inc., and Champion International Corporation regarding the mill's value and included items. Following a bench trial, the court found no fraud and entered judgment for the defendants. Machinery Sales appealed, presenting issues concerning fraudulent inducement, agency imputation, entitlement to rescission, and damages. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the evidence did not preponderate against the finding that defendants did not fraudulently induce the contract.

Rescission of ContractFraudulent MisrepresentationChip Mill SaleContract DisputeBench TrialAppellate ReviewAffirmed JudgmentTennessee LawReal Estate AppraisalAgency Law
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McMahan v. Greenwood

John McMahan appealed from summary judgments granted in favor of Howard Greenwood, Howard Greenwood Investments, Inc., Fine Rides, Inc., Circular Processing, Inc. (collectively, "the Greenwood defendants"), and J. Randle Henderson. McMahan's lawsuit arose from a business venture and alleged fraud, fraudulent inducement, breach of fiduciary duty, and legal malpractice. The court affirmed the summary judgment for the Greenwood defendants, upholding a prior settlement agreement and release against McMahan's claims of fraudulent inducement and duress. However, the court reversed in part the summary judgment for Henderson, finding that the release did not cover him and that McMahan raised sufficient fact issues regarding fraudulent concealment and an attorney-client relationship for claims including fraud, malpractice, and negligent misrepresentation. The case was remanded for further proceedings on these specific claims against Henderson.

Summary JudgmentFraudulent InducementRelease AgreementAttorney-Client RelationshipStatute of LimitationsLegal MalpracticeBreach of Fiduciary DutyNegligent MisrepresentationConspiracyContract Law
References
126
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 2006

Recursion Software, Inc. v. Interactive Intelligence, Inc.

Recursion Software, Inc. sued Interactive Intelligence, Inc. for copyright violations, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and quantum meruit, alleging improper use of its Voyager software. Interactive counterclaimed, asserting fraudulent inducement and breach of implied warranties. The court dismissed Recursion's quasi-contractual claims due to copyright preemption. It also dismissed Interactive's counterclaims for fraudulent inducement and breach of implied warranties, finding them insufficiently supported or disclaimed. However, significant factual disputes regarding licensing terms and knowledge of infringement prevented full summary judgment for either party on the core contract and copyright claims.

Software LicensingCopyright InfringementBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentCopyright PreemptionQuasi-Contract ClaimsUnjust EnrichmentQuantum MeruitImplied WarrantiesFraudulent Inducement
References
95
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Crotona 1967 Corp. v. Vidu Bros.

Plaintiff Crotona 1967 Corporation sought summary judgment to enforce a promissory note against Vidu Brother Corp. and a personal guaranty against Harshad Patel. Defendants argued fraudulent inducement regarding the real estate transaction and the temporary nature of Patel's guaranty. The court granted summary judgment against Vidu Brother Corp., finding their fraudulent inducement defense invalid due to a lack of reasonable reliance and specific contractual clauses. However, a genuine issue of material fact regarding the intended temporary duration of Patel's personal guaranty precluded summary judgment against him. The court denied attorney's fees without a hearing on reasonableness.

Promissory NoteSummary JudgmentFraudulent InducementPersonal GuarantyContract LawReal Estate TransactionStatute of FraudsDiversity JurisdictionCorporate LiabilityIndividual Liability
References
56
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 1995

Big Apple Car, Inc. v. City of New York

This action involves contracts awarded to the plaintiff, Big Apple Car, Inc., by the Human Resources Administration (HRA) for emergency transportation services. Defendants, the City of New York, became aware in 1987 of fraudulent vouchers submitted by the plaintiff, with HRA employees also implicated. A prior appeal upheld the City's right to terminate contracts due to fraud, even though later contracts were awarded to facilitate a criminal investigation. The current order addresses motions for summary judgment regarding breach of contract and fraud in the inducement claims. The Court modified a previous order, denying plaintiff leave to amend its complaint to add fraudulent inducement claims, while affirming the denial of the City's summary judgment on its counterclaim.

Breach of ContractSummary JudgmentFraudulent InducementFraudulent VouchersContract TerminationCriminal InvestigationAmendment of ComplaintAccount StatedAppellate ReviewHRA Contracts
References
4
Case No. 14-05-00604-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 10, 2007

in Re: TMI, Inc. Trendmaker Homes

This case involves a consolidated interlocutory appeal and petition for writ of mandamus by TMI, Inc. (Trendmaker Homes) against numerous homeowners. Trendmaker challenged a trial court's May 13, 2005 order denying its motion to compel arbitration. The homeowners had sued Trendmaker over environmental contamination on their homesites and alleged fraudulent inducement and unconscionability of the arbitration clause in their purchase agreements. The appellate court determined that the homeowners' claims fell within the broad scope of the arbitration agreement. It found no sufficient evidence for procedural unconscionability (fraudulent inducement) and ruled that the arbitration clause was not substantively unconscionable due to cost, as the agreement did not mandate the most expensive arbitration forum. The court reversed the trial court's order, remanding the case for arbitration, and denied the petition for writ of mandamus.

Arbitration AgreementUnconscionability DefenseProcedural UnconscionabilitySubstantive UnconscionabilityFraudulent InducementContract DisputeEnvironmental ContaminationHomeowner LitigationTexas General Arbitration ActInterlocutory Appeal
References
26
Case No. E2012-00934-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 18, 2013

Franda Webb v. First Tennessee Brokerage, Inc.

The Tennessee Court of Appeals reviewed a trial court's denial of a motion to compel arbitration in a dispute between Franda Webb and First Tennessee Brokerage, Inc., and its financial advisor, Michael Conaty. Webb alleged fraudulent inducement and an unconscionable contract of adhesion related to her investment in Lehman Brothers bonds. The trial court found the arbitration agreement unenforceable, citing Conaty's misrepresentations about the investment's safety and a 'one-day only opportunity,' which created a false sense of urgency. The appellate court affirmed, holding that under Tennessee law, claims of fraudulent inducement and unconscionability render arbitration agreements unenforceable, and that the minor plaintiff was not bound by the agreement. The decision regarding arbitration was affirmed, while other findings going to the merits of the underlying case were vacated, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

ArbitrationFraudulent InducementUnconscionabilityContract of AdhesionSecurities FraudBrokerage LiabilityInvestment MisrepresentationFinancial Advisor NegligenceLehman BrothersAppellate Procedure
References
36
Case No. 14-CV-6097 (JFB) (ARL)
Regular Panel Decision
May 15, 2017

Brookhaven Town Conservative Committee v. Walsh

This Memorandum and Order addresses a motion to dismiss a civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act claim and a New York State law fraudulent inducement claim. Plaintiffs, including Brookhaven Town Conservative Committee, alleged that defendant Edward M. Walsh, Jr. diverted monetary donations intended for the Suffolk County Conservative Party for his personal use, constituting mail and wire fraud. The Court found that while plaintiffs had standing, they failed to plead the mail and wire fraud predicate acts with the particularity required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). Consequently, the RICO claim was dismissed with prejudice. The Court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law fraudulent inducement claim, dismissing it without prejudice to refiling in state court.

RICO ActMail FraudWire FraudMotion to DismissPleading StandardsRule 9(b)Fraudulent InducementCivil ProcedureFederal CourtsSuffolk County
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Momentive Performance Materials USA, Inc. v. Astrocosmos Metallurgical, Inc.

Plaintiff MPM Silicones, LLC (assignee of GE) sued Defendant AstroCosmos Metallurgical Inc. for various claims concerning a defective tantalum-lined weak acid reactor, including breach of a 1999 Purchase Agreement and a 2005 Replacement Agreement, fraudulent inducement, negligent misrepresentation, professional negligence, strict products liability, and breaches of implied and express warranties. AstroCosmos moved to dismiss the amended complaint. The court granted dismissal for most claims due to statute of limitations, including the breach of the Purchase Agreement, fraudulent inducement, negligent misrepresentation, professional negligence, and breaches of implied and express warranties. However, the court denied dismissal for the breach of the Replacement Agreement claim and partially denied dismissal for the strict products liability claim regarding property damage after May 25, 2004, allowing these claims to proceed.

Breach of ContractFraudulent InducementNegligent MisrepresentationProfessional NegligenceEngineering MalpracticeStrict Products LiabilityImplied WarrantiesExpress WarrantiesStatute of LimitationsEquitable Estoppel
References
32
Case No. 01-19-00642-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 05, 2021

James J. McKinley and Kin-Tek Laboratories, Inc. v. Kin-Tek Analytical, Inc.

James J. McKinley and Kin-Tek Laboratories, Inc. (appellants) appealed a final judgment in favor of Kin-Tek Analytical, Inc. (appellee), following a jury verdict on damages and attorney's fees. The dispute arose from an Asset Purchase Agreement where Analytical acquired Laboratories' assets, with McKinley holding 40% of Analytical's shares. Appellants initially sued Analytical and Botts for various claims, later nonsuiting them, leading to Analytical pursuing counterclaims for breach of contract, misrepresentation, and fraudulent inducement. The jury found that McKinley and Laboratories failed to comply with the Agreement, awarding Analytical damages for various 'Excluded Liabilities' and product-related issues. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's damages awards and rejecting appellants' arguments regarding fraudulent inducement and attorney's fees.

Breach of ContractAsset Purchase AgreementJury VerdictDamages AwardAttorney FeesSufficiency of EvidenceExcluded LiabilitiesProduct Documentation IssuesProduct Design DefectsFailure to Disclose
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 645 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