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

Prince v. Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry.

The petitioner, S. J. Prince, sought workmen's compensation for an injury sustained in October 1924 while employed by the Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway as a section hand in Carroll County, Tennessee. The defendant railway appealed the chancellor's judgment, which had awarded Prince compensation. The core defense was that both parties were engaged in interstate commerce at the time of the injury, making the workmen's compensation statute inapplicable and falling under the federal Employers’ Liability Act. The court reviewed several precedents concerning employment in interstate commerce. Ultimately, the court found that the petitioner and defendant were indeed engaged in interstate commerce, thus reversing the chancellor's judgment and dismissing Prince's suit.

Workers' CompensationInterstate CommerceFederal Employers' Liability ActRailroad Worker InjurySection HandCarroll County CourtInjury CompensationAppellate ReviewJurisdiction DisputePrecedent Analysis
References
13
Case No. 10-92-076-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 1993

City of La Porte, Texas v. Allen Ray Prince

The City of La Porte appealed a judgment in favor of Allen Prince, an employee, who claimed he was wrongfully discharged for filing a workers' compensation claim. The jury found in favor of Prince, awarding him actual and exemplary damages. The City raised several points on appeal, including governmental immunity, sufficiency of evidence for exemplary damages, exclusion of witness testimony due to discovery violations, and the award of prejudgment interest. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding that governmental immunity does not apply in such cases, the exemplary damages were supported by sufficient evidence and due process, and the exclusion of evidence was proper.

Wrongful DischargeWorkers' Compensation RetaliationGovernmental ImmunityExemplary DamagesDue ProcessPrejudgment InterestAppellate ReviewEmployment LawTexas LawMunicipal Liability
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 25, 1995

Prince v. Sentry Insurance Co.

This workers' compensation appeal concerns Ricky Prince, an employee who sustained a left leg injury in 1990. After an initial award for permanent partial disability and temporary total disability which terminated in 1991, Prince underwent surgery in 1993 related to the original injury and sought a second period of temporary total disability benefits. The Trial Court modified the original judgment to grant these additional benefits. However, the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel reversed this decision, holding that T.C.A. Sec. 50-6-231 does not authorize modification of an award for a second period of temporary total disability benefits when such disability had previously terminated and there were no subsequent anatomical changes or newly discovered disability.

Temporary Total Disability BenefitsPermanent Partial Disability BenefitsWorkers' Compensation Appeals PanelModification of Workers' Comp AwardPost-Judgment SurgeryMaximum Medical ImprovementTennessee Workers' Compensation LawStatutory InterpretationReversal of JudgmentAccrued Disability Payments
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mi-Kyung Cho v. Young Bin Café

The plaintiff, Mi-Kyung Cho, a hostess at Young Bin Café in Flushing, New York, sued her employers, Young Bin Café and Gabin, following a physical assault by a customer in 2008. She alleged negligence, retaliatory discharge under New York and New Jersey anti-discrimination laws, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and tortious interference with business relations and contract. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing all claims. It found that her complaints (a police report and a request for workers' compensation) were not 'protected activity' under the relevant human rights laws, her tortious interference claims lacked merit due to a lack of identified relationships/contracts, and her intentional infliction of emotional distress claim was time-barred by New York's one-year statute of limitations.

Retaliatory DischargeSummary JudgmentNew York Human Rights LawNew Jersey Law Against DiscriminationIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressTortious InterferenceDiversity JurisdictionFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureMagistrate Judge DecisionEmployment Discrimination
References
102
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 06230 [153 AD3d 1111]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 17, 2017

Matter of Prince v. Verizon N.Y.

Felicia Prince sought workers' compensation benefits for an occupational neck injury caused by repetitive stress as a customer service attendant. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially found prima facie medical evidence but later discontinued the claim for lack of sufficient medical evidence and failure to prosecute. The Workers' Compensation Board reversed this decision, disallowing the claim after determining the record was fully developed and lacked medical support. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board did not abuse its discretion by refusing further development of the record, given that claimant had the opportunity to present evidence and acknowledged its insufficiency.

Occupational diseaseneck injuryrepetitive stressworkers' compensation benefitsmedical evidenceabuse of discretionrecord developmentclaim disallowancefailure to prosecuteAppellate Division
References
4
Case No. 04 Civ. 8151(RWS)
Regular Panel Decision

Prince v. Madison Square Garden

Plaintiff Courtney Prince filed an amended complaint alleging a sexually hostile work environment and retaliation against her former employer, Madison Square Garden, L.P., and supervisors Jason Vogel and Ryan Halkett, under federal, state, and city laws. Defendants moved to dismiss several causes of action. The court denied the motion, ruling that Prince's allegations of persistent unwelcome sexual remarks, advances, and a requirement for skaters to be sexually alluring were sufficient to state a hostile work environment claim. The court also found that Prince adequately alleged vicarious liability against Madison Square Garden for its supervisors' conduct and individual liability against Halkett under New York State and City law. The decision emphasized that the standard for a hostile work environment does not require physical threats and must consider the totality of circumstances, concluding that Prince's claims could proceed.

Hostile Work EnvironmentSexual HarassmentWorkplace DiscriminationRetaliation ClaimMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6)Vicarious LiabilitySupervisory AuthorityNew York State Human Rights LawNew York City Human Rights Law
References
38
Case No. 13-99-530-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 19, 2001

Lee, Prince v. Grant-Lydick Beverage Company D/B/A 7UP/RC Cola/Big Red of Victoria

Prince Lee appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Grant-Lydick Beverage Company on claims of wrongful termination in retaliation for a workers' compensation claim and malicious prosecution. Lee, who sustained an on-the-job injury, was later accused of theft, suspended, and terminated. Criminal charges against him were subsequently dismissed. The appellate court found that Lee presented sufficient circumstantial evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding a retaliatory motive for his discharge, citing factors such as the employer's knowledge of his compensation claim, a supervisor's negative attitude, and the timing of his termination. Consequently, the appellate court reversed and remanded the retaliatory discharge claim for further proceedings. However, the court affirmed the summary judgment on the malicious prosecution claim, concluding that the company had probable cause to initiate criminal proceedings based on an eyewitness account and confirmed missing inventory. Lee's defamation claim was waived on appeal.

Workers' CompensationRetaliatory DischargeMalicious ProsecutionSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewTexas LawEmployment LawCausal ConnectionPretextProbable Cause
References
31
Case No. Docket Entry No. 102
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 16, 2011

Beautybank, Inc. v. Harvey Prince LLP

Plaintiff BeautyBank Inc. sought to hold Kumar Ramani in contempt for breaching a permanent injunction issued on October 12, 2010, against Harvey Prince LLP. BeautyBank alleged that Ramani, as a principal of Harvey Prince LLP, continued to sell infringing products. Ramani argued that Harvey Prince LLP did not legally exist and therefore he could not be held in contempt. The court found that BeautyBank failed to provide clear and convincing evidence of Harvey Prince LLP's existence as a legal entity. Furthermore, the court determined that judicial estoppel should not apply because BeautyBank did not suffer unfair detriment, and Ramani did not gain an unfair advantage from his prior inconsistent statements to the USPTO. Consequently, the motion for contempt was denied as Ramani could not be subject to an injunction against a non-existent entity.

Trademark InfringementContempt MotionPermanent InjunctionDefault JudgmentJudicial EstoppelNon-Existent EntityUSPTO FilingsNevada LawIntellectual PropertyEAU FLIRT
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hundley v. Prince Street Associates

The plaintiff, John Hundley, an employee of Eagle Contracting Company, sustained injuries after falling from a ladder during a roofing project for which Gordon Construction, Inc. was the general contractor and Prince Street Associates was the building owner. This decision addresses appeals from a Supreme Court order regarding summary judgment motions for Labor Law § 200 and negligence claims, as well as contractual and common-law indemnification claims among Gordon, Prince, Eagle, and R. Smith Restoration. The Appellate Division dismissed certain appeals for lack of aggrievement and affirmed the order in part, finding that factual questions persist regarding Gordon's control over Hundley's work, thus impacting indemnification claims.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentIndemnificationLabor LawConstruction AccidentAppellate ReviewEmployer LiabilitySubcontractor LiabilityPremises LiabilityCommon-Law Indemnification
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Prince v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of New York, Inc.

Plaintiff Stephanie Prince filed an employment discrimination lawsuit against Coca-Cola Bottling Company of New York, Inc., Michael Drake, and Leonard Erlanger, alleging violations of Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law due to sexual harassment and retaliation. Defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting that Prince's claims were subject to arbitration under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). Senior District Judge William C. Conner, applying guidance from Wright v. Universal Maritime Service Corp., determined that the CBA did not contain a clear and unmistakable waiver of the plaintiff's statutory right to a judicial forum for her federal discrimination claims. Consequently, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss or stay the proceedings.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIINYSHRLArbitration AgreementCollective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)Waiver of Federal Forum RightsSummary Judgment MotionHostile Work EnvironmentSexual HarassmentRetaliation
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 66 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