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

Rogers v. Morales

Plaintiff Sadie A. Rogers filed a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking to declare the Texas Workers Compensation Law unconstitutional and claiming compensatory and punitive damages. Defendants, Texas Attorney General Dan Morales and Texas Workers Compensation Commission Executive Director Todd K. Brown, moved to dismiss. The court dismissed the claims for compensatory and punitive damages against the defendants in their official capacities with prejudice, citing Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity. The court further dismissed the claim challenging the constitutionality of the Texas Workers Compensation Act without prejudice, invoking the abstention doctrine to allow Texas state courts to interpret their own comprehensive workers' compensation statute, particularly concerning medically recognized diagnoses not listed in evaluation guides.

Eleventh AmendmentSovereign ImmunityAbstention DoctrineCivil Rights Act42 U.S.C. § 1983Workers' Compensation LawConstitutional LawFederal CourtDismissalState Statutes
References
11
Case No. Adv. Proc. No. 16-01074 (SMB)
Regular Panel Decision

Core Litigation Trust ex rel. Kravitz v. Apollo Global Management, LLC (In re AOG Entertainment, Inc.)

The CORE Litigation Trust, as assignee of Debtors’ pre-petition secured lenders, initiated a proceeding in California State Court against a group of defendants. The Trust alleged inducing a breach of contract and intentional interference with contracts. The action was removed to federal court and subsequently transferred to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. The Trust moved for mandatory abstention and remand to the California State Court. The Court granted the motion, finding it had non-core, 'related to' jurisdiction and that the action could be timely adjudicated in the state court.

Mandatory abstentionRemandBankruptcy jurisdictionNon-core jurisdictionRelated to jurisdictionTimely adjudicationState law claimsFederalismComityChoice of law
References
75
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 08, 1993

In Re Super Van, Inc.

The debtor, Super Van, Inc., operating a shuttle service in San Antonio, Texas, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in September 1992. As part of the bankruptcy proceedings, the debtor moved under Section 505 of the Bankruptcy Code to determine its tax liability to both the Internal Revenue Service and the Texas Employment Commission (TEC). The TEC subsequently filed a motion asking the court to abstain from hearing the debtor's tax determination motion. The court denied the TEC's motion for abstention, rejecting arguments based on the Thompson, Burford, and Younger abstention doctrines. The court emphasized that Section 505 explicitly grants bankruptcy courts jurisdiction over tax disputes, even if previously adjudicated, to centralize estate administration and avoid inconsistent rulings, thus overriding general abstention principles in this context.

BankruptcyAbstention DoctrineTax LiabilityIndependent ContractorEmployee ClassificationTexas Employment CommissionInternal Revenue ServiceFederal JurisdictionState JurisdictionSection 505 Bankruptcy Code
References
24
Case No. Claim #4179
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2006

In Re Agway, Inc.

Reliance Insurance Company (in liquidation) filed a motion on March 23, 2006, requesting that the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of New York declare it lacked jurisdiction over Reliance's claim against Agway, Inc. (the Debtors) or, alternatively, abstain from hearing the Liquidating Trustee's motion to expunge Reliance's claim #4179. Reliance argued that the McCarran-Ferguson Act reverse-preempted federal jurisdiction and that the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court had primary jurisdiction under the 'first assuming jurisdiction' doctrine, or that Burford abstention was appropriate. The Liquidating Trustee opposed the motion, challenging Reliance's interpretation of the McCarran-Ferguson Act and the applicability of the abstention doctrines. The court denied Reliance's motion, affirming its core jurisdiction over the claim and finding Reliance's arguments for reverse-preemption, abstention, and first assuming jurisdiction to be without merit.

Bankruptcy LawJurisdictionMcCarran-Ferguson ActAbstention DoctrineInsurance LiquidationClaim ExpungementFederal PreemptionState LawCore ProceedingsStatutory Interpretation
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Torres v. DeMatteo Salvage Co.

Guillermo Torres filed an action against De-Matteo Salvage Co. Inc., Joseph DeMatteo, Carmine DeMatteo, and Amalia DeMatteo, alleging unlawful termination under the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982. Torres claimed he was discharged for refusing to operate an unsafe truck. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint based on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), invoking the Younger abstention doctrine due to a parallel state court action. The Court examined the applicability of Younger abstention, specifically considering whether the state civil proceedings were "akin to criminal prosecutions." The Court concluded that Younger abstention was inappropriate because the state court action was between private parties, not initiated by a state body in its sovereign capacity, and did not aim to sanction the federal plaintiff for a wrongful act. Therefore, the Defendants' motion to dismiss was denied.

Abstention DoctrineYounger AbstentionRule 12(b)(1) motionSurface Transportation Assistance ActWhistleblower protectionLabor LawFederal JurisdictionState court proceedingsCivil procedureMotion to dismiss
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stephens v. Cooper

Plaintiffs, a group of chiropractors, medical doctors, and PTS Thermal Imaging, brought an action against the Superintendent of the New York State Department of Insurance. They challenged a regulation establishing a fee schedule for thermography services under New York's no-fault automobile insurance law, alleging violations of the New York Administrative Procedure Act, due process, equal protection, and the Sherman Act. The Superintendent moved to dismiss the Sherman Act claims and for abstention. The court granted the motion to dismiss, abstaining under the Burford doctrine, finding that New York has a comprehensive insurance regulatory scheme and that the case involves a challenge to the Superintendent's implementation of state law, thus warranting federal court abstention.

Abstention DoctrineBurford AbstentionNo-Fault InsuranceFee Schedule RegulationThermography ServicesInsurance LawFederal Court JurisdictionSherman Antitrust ActDue Process ChallengeEqual Protection Challenge
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Donkor v. City of New York Human Resources Administration Special Services for Children

The Donkors, Ghanian nationals residing in Bronx, New York, filed a habeas corpus petition seeking custody of their two daughters, Andrea and Crystal, from HRA-SSC after the children were placed in foster care in April 1986. The petition alleged civil rights violations by HRA-SSC, Montefiore Medical Center, and specific individuals, claiming false accusations of child abuse based on cultural practices and fabricated medical findings. Defendants moved to dismiss the petition due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction and abstention, arguing the Donkors had not exhausted state remedies. The court dismissed the petition, ruling that federal habeas corpus relief does not extend to child custody matters not involving a state criminal justice system, and applied the Younger abstention doctrine, citing a pending state family court proceeding and New York State's compelling interest in child custody disputes.

Habeas CorpusChild CustodyParental RightsYounger AbstentionCivil RightsDue ProcessChild AbuseFamily Court JurisdictionState Remedies ExhaustionFederal Intervention
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ash v. Richard J. Lynch & Co., Inc.

Vista Lanes Limited sued Richard J. Lynch & Co., Inc. in federal court in New York for a refund and damages related to a failed contract for bowling pinsetters. Lynch had previously filed a lawsuit against Vista and Lyons Bowling Center, Inc. in New Jersey state court concerning the same underlying transaction. Lynch subsequently filed a motion in the federal court to stay the proceedings, citing convenience, the risk of piecemeal litigation, and the earlier start of the New Jersey case. The federal court, presided over by District Judge Glasser, analyzed the motion using the Colorado River abstention doctrine factors. Despite some factors leaning slightly in Lynch's favor, the court concluded that Lynch had not demonstrated the "exceptional circumstances" required to warrant abstention or a stay of the federal action, especially considering Vista's willingness to arbitrate its federal claim. Consequently, Lynch's motion to stay the proceedings was denied.

Abstention DoctrineColorado River AbstentionParallel LitigationStay of ProceedingsFederal JurisdictionDiversity JurisdictionPiecemeal LitigationContract DisputeBowling PinsettersInter-jurisdictional Conflict
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Taub v. Taub (In Re Taub)

Chana Taub, the debtor and plaintiff in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy case, filed an adversary proceeding against her estranged husband, Simon Taub, and his daughters, Rachel Taub and Perl Fein. The adversary proceeding sought to set aside alleged fraudulent transfers of the Grand Avenue Properties and impose a constructive trust, claims rooted in New York's Debtor and Creditor Law and Domestic Relations Law. The defendants moved for the Bankruptcy Court to abstain from deciding these claims, arguing they were purely state law matters related to equitable distribution and fraudulent conveyances already pending in New York State Supreme Court, Kings County. Presided over by Judge Elizabeth S. Stong, the court granted the Abstention Motion. The decision found that both mandatory and permissive abstention were warranted because the claims were based on state law, constituted non-core proceedings, had no federal jurisdictional basis other than bankruptcy, and could be timely adjudicated in the state court, which possessed expertise in domestic relations.

AbstentionBankruptcyFraudulent TransferEquitable DistributionDomestic RelationsState Law ClaimsCore ProceedingNon-Core ProceedingForum ShoppingNew York Law
References
32
Case No. 90 Civ. 8473, 92 Civ. 3900, 92 Civ. 3901
Regular Panel Decision

Asbestos Litigation

Defendant Raymark Industries, Inc. moved to dismiss, stay, or transfer four of six consolidated asbestos actions. The plaintiffs in these actions (Greff, Moore, McPadden, Strafford, Ciletti, Conway) alleged exposure to asbestos causing diseases like mesothelioma and lung cancer. Raymark based its motion on claims of insufficient service of process, ineffective amendment of complaints to include Raymark as a defendant, and the applicability of abstention doctrine due to parallel state court proceedings for Ciletti and Strafford. The court denied all aspects of Raymark's motion. It found that the plaintiffs had complied with service requirements under New York Business Corporation Law § 307 and that the amendment adding Raymark as a defendant was authorized by a standing Case Management Order for asbestos litigation, overriding the need for specific court leave. Furthermore, the court determined that the conditions for federal abstention under the Colorado River doctrine were not met, upholding the federal court's obligation to exercise its jurisdiction. The court also clarified that Raymark was indeed joined to the Greff and Moore actions through a prior consolidation order, despite Raymark's bankruptcy stay arguments.

Asbestos LitigationMultidistrict LitigationMotion to DismissService of ProcessAmended ComplaintFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(a)Abstention DoctrineColorado River AbstentionParallel State and Federal ProceedingsJurisdiction
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 32 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