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. 02-14-00191-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 07, 2015

Fix It Today, LLC and Banatex, LLC v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc.

Appellants Fix It Today, LLC and Banatex, LLC (collectively, FIT Finance) appealed a judgment in favor of Santander Consumer USA, Inc. (SCUSA). FIT Finance operated a scheme to make loans for emergency auto repair, claiming superior worker's liens over SCUSA's perfected purchase money security interests. SCUSA sued for conversion, tortious interference, damages under the Texas Theft Liability Act, conspiracy, and sought a declaratory judgment. The trial court initially ruled for SCUSA, but the Court of Appeals reversed the conspiracy claim, entering a take-nothing judgment. Additionally, the conversion, tortious interference, Texas Theft Liability Act claims, and the attorney's fee award were reversed and remanded for a new trial. The declaratory judgment portion of the trial court's decision was affirmed.

Texas LawCivil ConspiracyConversionTortious InterferenceTexas Theft Liability ActWorkers' Lien StatuteDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceDamages Calculation
References
29
Case No. 1:16-cv-09901-JSR
Regular Panel Decision

In re Propranolol Antitrust Litigation

Plaintiffs, consisting of direct purchasers and end-payors, filed nationwide class actions against multiple pharmaceutical companies alleging an illegal conspiracy to fix the price of the generic drug propranolol. Presiding Judge JED S. RAKOFF, of the Southern District of New York, denied the defendants' motions to dismiss the claims brought under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, finding sufficient factual allegations to infer a price-fixing conspiracy. However, the court dismissed certain state law antitrust and consumer protection claims due to issues of standing or failure to adequately state a claim under specific state statutes. Conversely, the defendants' motion to dismiss the unjust enrichment claims was denied. The court also reaffirmed its prior ruling denying dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction, asserting that nationwide service of process under the Sherman Act does not violate Fifth Amendment due process given the defendants' national contacts and the efficiency of a joint trial.

AntitrustPrice-fixingGeneric DrugsPropranololClass ActionSherman ActPersonal JurisdictionState Law ClaimsConsumer ProtectionUnjust Enrichment
References
61
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. 13 Civ. 7789
Regular Panel Decision

Simmtech Co. v. Barclays Bank PLC

This case involves a consolidated class action brought by U.S.-based plaintiffs and two separate foreign actions, all alleging a long-running conspiracy among twelve major banks to manipulate benchmark rates in the foreign exchange (FX) market. The plaintiffs claim that the defendant banks violated Sections 1 and 8 of the Sherman Act by engaging in collusive trading strategies, such as 'front running,' 'banging the close,' and 'painting the screen,' facilitated through electronic chat rooms. This alleged manipulation aimed to fix the WM/Reuters Closing Spot Rates (the 'Fix'), allowing defendants to earn supra-competitive profits. The court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the Consolidated Action, finding the allegations of a price-fixing conspiracy and antitrust injury plausible. However, the court granted the motion to dismiss the two Foreign Actions, concluding that they are barred by the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act (FTAIA) and lack a sufficient nexus to New York for state law claims, thus dismissing them with prejudice.

Antitrust LawSherman ActForeign Exchange MarketFX ManipulationPrice-fixing ConspiracyClass Action LawsuitMotion to DismissFinancial MarketsGlobal BankingRegulatory Enforcement
References
37
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
Showing 1-10 of 711 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