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. E1999-00102-COA-R10-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 31, 2000

D. A. Price v. P. C. Price

The Tennessee Court of Appeals reviewed a decision from the Blount County Circuit Court concerning a custody modification. The trial court had changed the children's physical custody from joint to sole custody for the mother, P. C. Price, primarily due to the father, D. A. Price, moving to Knoxville. Crucially, this change occurred during a hearing initially limited to determining if a temporary injunction, granting the mother temporary custody, should continue. The appellate court found that the trial court erred by making a permanent custody change without allowing both parties a full and fair hearing on the change of circumstances. Additionally, the appellate court determined there was no finding of irreparable harm to justify continuing the temporary injunction. As a result, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment, reinstated the original joint custody arrangement, and remanded the case for a comprehensive trial on the custody modification issue.

Custody DisputeJoint CustodyChange of CustodyTemporary InjunctionIrreparable HarmAppellate ReviewRemandParental RelocationChild's Best InterestHomosexual Parent
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 21, 2006

Price v. Jefferson County

Larklynn Price, an African-American former employee of Jefferson County, brought an action alleging racial discrimination and retaliation under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA) and equal protection violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Price claimed discriminatory reassignments, a frozen salary, denied promotions, and wrongful termination due to her race. The County moved for summary judgment, citing Price's poor attendance, excessive personal telephone use, and issues with office filing. The court granted summary judgment for Jefferson County on Price's federal § 1983 claims, finding no evidence that she was treated differently than similarly situated individuals based on race, nor that her alleged injuries stemmed from a discriminatory official county policy or custom. The court also determined that Price's retaliation claim was not actionable under § 1983 via the Fourteenth Amendment. Consequently, Price's state law claims under the TCHRA were remanded to the 58th Judicial District Court of Jefferson County, Texas.

Racial DiscriminationRetaliationEmployment LawSummary JudgmentEqual Protection ClauseFourteenth Amendment42 U.S.C. § 1983Texas Commission on Human Rights ActStatute of LimitationsContinuing Violation Theory
References
230
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 11, 2007

Willard J. Price Associates, LLC v. Stateside Construction, LLC

This case involves an appeal concerning the denial of Stateside's motion to dismiss indemnification and contribution claims brought by Price. Price, the site owner, had settled an underlying personal injury action and subsequently sued its construction manager, Stateside, based on an indemnity clause. Stateside argued that a conflict of interest warranted dismissal, stemming from a previous attorney disqualification in the underlying action where an attorney hired by Price's insurer sued Stateside. The court affirmed the denial of the motion to dismiss, distinguishing the current case by noting that while a key individual (Moragianis) wholly owned Proto (Price's property manager) and Stateside, he only held a minority interest in Price, thereby mitigating the alleged conflict of interest, especially with the retention of new, independent counsel.

IndemnificationContributionConflict of InterestAttorney DisqualificationCorporate OwnershipLLCInsuranceConstruction WorkerPersonal InjuryThird-Party Action
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tex. Employers' Ass'n v. Price

This appeal concerns a worker's compensation claim filed by Price, a Texas employee of Goetting, who sustained an injury in New Mexico while on temporary assignment. Goetting held workers' compensation insurance in both Texas (with the appellant, Texas Employers’ Ins. Ass’n) and New Mexico. Price received compensation under the New Mexico policy, leading the appellant to contend against double recovery and that Price's claim was barred due to late filing. The court affirmed the judgment, ruling that Price was indeed a Texas employee covered by the Texas policy, that obtaining compensation under both state policies was not against public policy, and that sufficient good cause was demonstrated for the delay in filing due to Price's incapacitation and assurances from the insurer's agent. The court further upheld the method for calculating Price's compensation.

Workers' CompensationInterstate Employment InjuryInsurance Coverage DisputeTimeliness of ClaimGood Cause ExceptionDouble RecoveryTexas LawNew Mexico LawEmployer LiabilityMedical Assessment
References
16
Case No. 14-11-00902-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 19, 2012

Deandrew Price v. Uni-Form Components Company

Deandrew Price, a temporary employee provided by AGL Elite Business Solutions, appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Uni-Form Components Company (UCC) in his negligence suit. Price sustained a severe foot injury while working as a machine operator at UCC. UCC asserted the affirmative defense of exclusive remedy under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act (TWCA), claiming Price was a temporary employee covered by its workers' compensation insurance and presented a certificate of insurance. Price challenged the coverage, arguing UCC failed to produce the full policy and that his personal affidavit indicated no workers' compensation involvement from UCC. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding UCC sufficiently established coverage through the certificate and affidavit, noting that an employer cannot split its workforce regarding workers' compensation coverage and that premium payment issues do not affect an employee's coverage.

Workers' CompensationSummary JudgmentExclusive Remedy ProvisionTemporary EmployeeBorrowed Servant DoctrineNegligenceInsurance CoverageTexas Labor CodeAppellate ReviewEmployer Liability
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Price v. Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n

Appellant Bonnie F. Price appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Texas Employers’ Insurance Association (TEIA) concerning her claim of bad faith in handling two workers' compensation claims. Price's initial workers' compensation claims were settled in March 1988, after which she initiated a separate bad faith claim against TEIA. TEIA successfully moved for summary judgment in the trial court, asserting that Price's bad faith claim was barred by res judicata/collateral estoppel due to the prior settlement judgment, that her previous agreements constituted judicial admissions, and that evidence negated essential elements of her bad faith claim. The appellate court reviewed the summary judgment, focusing on the applicability of collateral estoppel and judicial admissions stemming from the prior workers' compensation settlement. Ultimately, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment, concluding that TEIA had successfully proven its affirmative defenses and negated elements of Price's bad faith claim.

Summary JudgmentWorkers' CompensationBad Faith ClaimDuty of Good Faith and Fair DealingRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelJudicial AdmissionSettlement AgreementAppellate ReviewInsurance Carrier Liability
References
11
Case No. CA 12-02386
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 08, 2013

PRICE TRUCKING CORP. v. AAA ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.

Price Trucking Corp. (plaintiff-respondent) commenced an action alleging that First Niagara Bank, N.A. (defendant-appellant) violated Lien Law article 3-A by automatically transferring funds from AAA Environmental, Inc.'s operational account into its line of credit account, which Price Trucking claimed constituted a diversion of Lien Law trust assets. The Supreme Court granted Price Trucking's motion for partial summary judgment, finding First Niagara liable as a Lien Law statutory trustee and that it had both actual and constructive notice of the diversion. The Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, modified the order, denying Price Trucking's motion in its entirety. It concluded that First Niagara was not a statutory trustee under the facts and that the Supreme Court erred in applying a constructive notice standard, asserting that only actual notice is applicable to banks for the holder in due course defense under Lien Law § 72 (1).

Lien LawTrust AssetsHolder in Due CourseActual NoticeConstructive NoticeUniform Commercial CodeLender LiabilitySubcontractorsSummary JudgmentAppeal
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Price v. New York City Transit Authority

Claimants, Harry Price’s widow and two adult sons, appealed decisions from the Workers’ Compensation Board denying reimbursement for decedent’s home care and their alleged lost earnings. Decedent, Harry Price, sustained a work-related injury in 1943. In 1979, he applied to reopen his case for home care assistance. Unbeknownst to the Board or their attorney, decedent died in 1981, after which a referee initially authorized home care. The Board rescinded this decision for further information, and upon discovering decedent's death, ruled that no reimbursement was due as no expenses were incurred, and claimants did not lose income by solely caring for him. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding it rational and supported by substantial evidence, noting the claimants' tarnished credibility due to their two-year concealment of decedent's death.

Workers' CompensationReimbursement ClaimsHome Care ExpensesLost EarningsAppellate DivisionCredibility IssuesDeath of ClaimantCausal RelationWorkers' Compensation Law § 123New York Workers' Compensation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Price

Lennis Luther Price, an employee of the Tennessee Valley Authority, was indicted and convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 874, the federal kick-back statute, for extorting money from fellow employees. Price, acting as a de facto shop steward, falsely claimed payments were necessary for union permits for Rubel Estel Simmons, Jess Willard Douglass, and Warren Edward Wagner to retain their jobs. The court found that Price was merely a fellow employee and not a foreman or supervisor designated by the employer, thus not falling within the statute's intended scope, which targets employers or those with hiring/firing authority. Despite Price's "racketeer type" conduct, his actions were not covered by the specific federal kick-back statute under which he was prosecuted. Consequently, although the court lacked authority to enter a judgment of acquittal due to a procedural oversight, it granted Price's motion for a new trial.

Federal criminal lawkick-back statuteextortionlabor racketeeringunion shop stewardstatutory interpretationmotion for new trialemployer authoritypublic works projectTennessee Valley Authority
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carusone v. Three Centers (OLROHO) Associates

The plaintiff was injured at the Price Chopper Company's warehouse facility while unloading a truck. The plaintiff filed a complaint against both Price Chopper Company and its parent company, Golub Corporation, alleging violations of the Labor Law, strict products liability, and negligence, claiming to be an employee of both. The defendants asserted that the plaintiff's exclusive remedy was under the Workers’ Compensation Law. The court found sufficient evidence of the corporate relationship between Golub and Price Chopper and workers' compensation coverage through the State Insurance Fund, thus concluding that the Workers’ Compensation Law provided the exclusive remedy. Consequently, the motions for summary judgment were granted, and the complaint against Price Chopper Company and Golub Corporation was dismissed.

Workers' CompensationExclusive RemedySummary JudgmentCorporate VeilEmployer-Employee RelationshipPremises LiabilityNegligenceStrict Products LiabilityInsurance CoverageAffirmative Defense
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 212 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