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

Hightower v. United States

Willie Hightower, a federal employee, sued the United States and three individual federal officers for alleged injuries from a 1999 arrest at a VA hospital campus. Hightower sought money damages under state tort laws via the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) and constitutional claims under Bivens, despite having already received benefits under the Federal Employee's Compensation Act (FECA) for the same incident, which he certified as work-related. The court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. It ruled that FECA provides the exclusive remedy for federal employees' work-related injuries, thereby precluding FTCA claims against the United States. Furthermore, Bivens claims against the United States are barred by sovereign immunity, and against individual federal employees, they are precluded by the comprehensive remedial schemes of FECA and the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA).

Federal Employee Compensation ActFederal Tort Claims ActBivens ActionSovereign ImmunitySubject Matter JurisdictionExcessive ForceFalse ArrestMalicious ProsecutionSlanderLibel
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Enron Corp. v. Citigroup, Inc. (In Re Enron Corp.)

This case concerns Arthur Andersen LLP's motion to dismiss a third-party complaint brought against it by Barclays PLC and its affiliated entities. Andersen argued that the Bankruptcy Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the third-party complaint. The original adversary proceeding was initiated by Enron Corp. against Barclays and other banks, alleging various common law claims. Barclays, in turn, sought contribution from Andersen, claiming Andersen knowingly played a role in misrepresentations in Enron's financial statements. The court ultimately concluded that bankruptcy courts cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, and therefore, the bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction over Barclays' third-party complaint, leading to its dismissal.

Subject Matter JurisdictionSupplemental JurisdictionBankruptcy CourtThird-Party ComplaintMotion to DismissCore ProceedingsNon-Core ProceedingsRelated to JurisdictionArticle III PowersBankruptcy Code
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Betts v. University of Rochester

The Special Term's decision to grant the defendant's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint on the grounds of lack of subject matter jurisdiction was unanimously reversed. The primary issue on appeal was whether the causes of action presented in the complaint were preempted by the National Labor Relations Act. The court determined that the plaintiff's first and second causes of action, alleging wrongful termination in violation of an employment contract, were not preempted, as the defendant's alleged anti-union animus was irrelevant to the breach of contract claim. Additionally, the plaintiff's third cause of action, involving defamation and/or intentional infliction of emotional distress, was also found not to be preempted, as these claims are considered of peripheral concern to federal labor law and do not constitute unfair labor practices.

Wrongful TerminationBreach of Employment ContractDefamationIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressNational Labor Relations ActLabor Law PreemptionSubject Matter JurisdictionAppellate ReviewState Court JurisdictionAnti-Union Animus
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 1975

McIntyre v. Bakers For A Democratic Union

This case involves an appeal from an order denying the defendants' motion to dismiss a libel complaint. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, initially denied the motion to dismiss the complaint for legal insufficiency or for summary judgment, and also denied dismissal against defendant Caprio for lack of jurisdiction. The appellate court modified the order, dismissing the action against Caprio due to lack of jurisdiction, as he was served in New Jersey and had no New York ties. The court otherwise affirmed the denial of dismissal, finding that the subject matter of the allegedly false and indiscriminately distributed pamphlets, viewed in context of opposing affidavits, was sufficient to raise a triable issue as to actual malice. Justice Murphy dissented in part, arguing for dismissal against all appellants, asserting the leaflet targeted union officers, not the union, and that the alleged defamation arose from an intraunion dispute protected by the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act. He further contended that plaintiffs failed to show actual malice with convincing clarity, as required by New York Times Co. v Sullivan.

LibelDefamationJurisdictionSummary JudgmentLabor LawUnion DisputeActual MaliceFirst AmendmentCPLRUS Code
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2012

Securities Investor Protection Corp. v. Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC

The Trustee (Irving H. Picard) for the Madoff liquidation seeks to recover $42 million from the Taiwanese Bureau of Labor Insurance (BLI), a subsequent transferee of funds originating from BLMIS. BLI moved to dismiss the Trustee’s complaint on four grounds: lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), lack of personal jurisdiction, inability to recover as a subsequent transferee without avoiding initial transfers, and that claims are barred by the presumption against extraterritoriality. The Court denied BLI's motion, finding it has both subject matter and personal jurisdiction over BLI due to BLI's purposeful investment activities in New York-based BLMIS. The Court also ruled that the Trustee can pursue recovery from BLI because the initial transfers are 'avoidable' and the claims are not barred by extraterritoriality, as the statute's focus is on the domestic depletion of the bankruptcy estate.

Bankruptcy LawMadoff Ponzi SchemeForeign Sovereign Immunities ActPersonal JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionAvoidance ActionsSubsequent TransfereeExtraterritorialityCommercial Activity ExceptionFraudulent Transfers
References
72
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 1996

Stern v. United States

The plaintiffs, Sheldon and Sara Stern, initially sought a tax refund, arguing Sheldon Stern was an independent contractor for Allstate Insurance. After the IRS disallowed their claim, they filed an amended federal complaint, shifting their theory to a "dual status" as both employee and independent contractor. The government moved to dismiss, asserting the new theory diverged from their administrative claim, thereby eliminating subject matter jurisdiction under the variance doctrine. The District Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation, dismissing the amended complaint because the IRS had not adequately reviewed the "dual status" claim. The amended complaint was therefore dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Independent Contractor StatusDual Employment StatusTax RefundVariance DoctrineSubject Matter JurisdictionAmended ComplaintMotion to DismissFederal Tax LawIRSSovereign Immunity
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 15, 1998

Lawless v. Kera

The plaintiff was awarded partial summary judgment on a Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action, which imposes absolute liability on property owners and contractors for injuries from lack of safety devices when a worker falls from a height. Defendant Michael Kera, a third-party plaintiff and experienced in construction, appealed, arguing he fell under the statutory exception for one- and two-family dwelling owners who don't direct or control the work. The court found Kera did not qualify for the exemption because he was building the house solely for commercial purposes (selling it). The court also denied Kera's cross motion for summary judgment on the third-party complaint and the cross motion of Kera Construction Corp. and Vanessa Development Co., Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint due to existing triable issues of fact. The order was affirmed, upholding the plaintiff's partial summary judgment and denying the defendants' cross motions.

Labor LawPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentAbsolute LiabilityStatutory ExceptionCommercial PurposeHomeowner ExemptionConstruction BusinessTriable Issues of FactContributory Negligence
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Guippone v. Bh S & B Holdings LLC

The court addresses a class action lawsuit under the WARN Act, where terminated employees sued the purchaser of their former employer, Steve & Barry's, for not providing 60 days' notice before a mass layoff. Defendants argued employees were 'part-time' because they worked for the new owner for less than six months. The court rejected this, stating that employment periods with both seller and purchaser should be aggregated for WARN Act purposes. However, the court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss without prejudice, citing the complaint's deficient pleading of facts and instructing the plaintiff to file an amended complaint addressing these deficiencies within twenty days.

WARN ActMass LayoffPlant ClosingEmployment LossAsset PurchaseSuccessor LiabilityPart-Time EmployeesPleading StandardsMotion to DismissBankruptcy
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Walstein v. Blank

The plaintiff, an unnamed barmaid, filed a complaint against her employer, Erna Blank, and coemployee, Boger Croudy, after sustaining injuries from an assault by Croudy during her employment. Defendant Erna Blank moved to dismiss the complaint. The court found the complaint deficient because it failed to allege that the employer did not provide workers' compensation insurance or instigated the assault. Citing the Workmen's Compensation Law, the court ruled that the plaintiff's injuries arose in the course of employment, making workers' compensation her exclusive remedy. Consequently, the court granted the defendant Erna Blank's motion to dismiss the complaint.

Workers' CompensationMotion to DismissAssaultCo-employee InjuryExclusive RemedyEmployer LiabilityComplaint Sufficiency
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Depaja Enterprises, Ltd. v. American Bank & Trust Co.

The court addressed a motion by defendant Bank Leumi Trust Company of New York to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The plaintiff's complaint asserted claims under federal securities laws, the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, and pendent jurisdiction. The court found no subject matter jurisdiction for the claim against Bank Leumi under federal securities laws, noting the absence of a "common nucleus of operative facts." Regarding the claim against the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) as receiver for a State bank, the court determined it did not arise under federal laws. Citing Aldinger v. Howard, the court declined to exercise pendent party jurisdiction over Bank Leumi, emphasizing that the relevant statute did not intend Bank Leumi to be a party. Additionally, the court decided against exercising its discretionary pendent jurisdiction, concluding the state law claim against Bank Leumi belonged in state courts. Consequently, the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was granted.

Subject Matter JurisdictionRule 12(b) Fed.R.Civ.P.Pendent JurisdictionFederal Securities LawsFederal Deposit Insurance ActContractual ClaimReceiver of State BankPendent Party JurisdictionMotion to DismissFederal Jurisdiction
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 5,143 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