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

In Re Lowe

This is a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case involving a Trustee's objection to the Debtor's claim of exemption for accrued funds from a General Motors-United Auto Workers profit-sharing plan. The central legal question was whether these funds qualify for exemption under New York's "opt-out" exemption statutes, specifically Debtor and Creditor Law § 282 or CPLR § 5205(c), or as a spendthrift trust under federal bankruptcy law. The Debtor presented six arguments, including claims of express statutory exemption, exclusion from the bankruptcy estate, and a cash exemption, along with arguments based on the de minimis amount and equitable considerations. The Court meticulously analyzed New York's convoluted exemption schema and ultimately rejected each of the Debtor's proposed arguments, emphasizing that exemptions must be statutory and cannot be created by the court. Consequently, the Court sustained the Trustee's objection, ordering the Debtor to turn over the profit-sharing funds to the Trustee.

BankruptcyExemption LawProfit Sharing PlanChapter 7Debtor and Creditor LawSpendthrift TrustERISAStatutory InterpretationTrustee ObjectionNew York Exemption Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hackler v. H. Kohnstamm & Co. of Texas

H. Kohnstamm & Company of Texas, a judgment creditor, initiated a statutory action against Sheriff H. F. Hackler of Camp County and his sureties. The action stemmed from the sheriff's alleged failure and refusal to levy an execution on the property of judgment debtor George Collins, and for making a false return. The creditor claimed Collins possessed leviable assets, including his Pittsburg Laundry business, which he sold for a substantial sum while the execution was in the sheriff's possession. The sheriff contended he exercised due diligence and believed the property was exempt as 'tools and apparatus' of a trade. The court, citing precedents, determined that some assets, such as a cash register and scales, were not exempt. Consequently, the court found sufficient support in the record for the trial court's implied findings that not all laundry assets were wholly exempt and that the sheriff failed to exercise due diligence, leading to the affirmation of the judgment against the sheriff.

Execution of JudgmentSheriff LiabilityExempt PropertyTools and Apparatus ExemptionFalse ReturnDue DiligenceStatutory ActionTexas LawProperty LevyJudgment Creditor
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Handel

HSBC Bank USA objected to Joel M. Handel's exemptions of his interest in a profit-sharing plan and three life insurance policies in his Chapter 7 bankruptcy. HSBC argued that Handel's actions, including unauthorized withdrawals and false representations as a trustee, violated the plan's terms, ERISA, and IRC Section 401(a), thereby rendering his interest non-exempt. The court acknowledged Handel's violations but, citing Patterson v. Shumate, ruled that an anti-alienation provision enforceable under ERISA excludes the plan interest from the bankruptcy estate, irrespective of operational compliance or tax-qualified status. Additionally, the court found Handel adequately identified the life insurance policies. Consequently, HSBC's motion was denied, preserving Handel's exemptions.

BankruptcyERISAPension PlanExemptionAnti-alienationDebtor's EstateIRC 401(a)Life InsuranceDebtor's ConductFiduciary Duty
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Smith

Maurice K. Guinn, the Chapter 7 Trustee, objected to Norma Howard Smith's amended exemption claim of $10,000.00 from a National Service Life Insurance Policy. The Debtor sought exemption under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1970(g) and § 5301. The court ruled that § 1970(g) does not cover National Service Life Insurance, but found the proceeds exempt under 38 U.S.C.A. § 5301(a) from creditors' claims. Additionally, the court decided that the funds maintained their exempt status after being invested in a certificate of deposit. Consequently, the Trustee's objection was denied, upholding the Debtor's exemption claim.

BankruptcyExemption ClaimChapter 7National Service Life InsuranceVeterans' BenefitsStatutory ConstructionCreditor ClaimsCertificate of DepositLife Insurance ProceedsFederal Exemption Law
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 1995

In Re Minor

The court consolidated two Chapter 13 bankruptcy cases, In re Minor and In re Mills, concerning objections by the Chapter 13 Trustee to the debtors' claims of exemption for lump-sum workers' compensation benefits. Debtors Kevin S. Minor, Angela D. Minor, and Martin Blaine Mills had received these settlements post-confirmation and sought to exempt them under Tennessee law. The primary issues resolved by Chief Judge Richard S. Stair, Jr. were whether these awards constituted property of the estate under 11 U.S.C.A. § 1306(a) and whether they should be included as "disposable income" for plan confirmation under 11 U.S.C.A. § 1325(b)(2). The court held that workers' compensation awards are indeed property of the estate and, despite state law exemptions, must be included in the calculation of disposable income to be applied to the Chapter 13 plan, to the extent not reasonably necessary for the debtors' support or business operations. Consequently, the Trustee's objection to amended exemptions was sustained in part, affirming that the benefits are property of the estate and disposable income, but overruled in part as debtors could still claim exemption under state law.

Chapter 13 BankruptcyWorkers' CompensationExemptionsDisposable IncomeProperty of EstatePost-Confirmation ModificationBankruptcy CodeTennessee LawLump Sum SettlementStatutory Interpretation
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Lipsky

Richard Lipsky, convicted of bribery and conspiracy to commit bribery, sought an exemption from the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) prohibition on working for labor unions. The Department of Justice did not object, but the Department of Labor opposed the motion. The Court granted Lipsky's motion, finding that he demonstrated rehabilitation since his release from imprisonment in 2013. His work for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and pro bono efforts, along with a clean record, supported this finding. The Court also determined that his proposed role as a consultant for the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, focusing on criminal justice reforms and not involving lobbying or fund handling, would not conflict with the LMRDA's purpose of preventing corruption in labor organizations.

RehabilitationLMRDA ExemptionBribery ConvictionLabor Union ConsultantCriminal Justice ReformFederal CourtJudicial DiscretionSentencing GuidelinesPost-Conviction ReliefEthical Conduct
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Harlan

The Debtors, who filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, claimed an exemption for the proceeds from the voluntary sale of their homestead under Article 3834, Texas Revised Civil Statutes Annotated. Kettering Construction Company, a creditor, objected, arguing that the exemption's intent was for reinvestment in a new homestead within six months, and the court should verify this use. The Court, referencing White v. Stump, determined that exemption rights are fixed at the time of the bankruptcy petition's filing. Since the Debtors filed within the six-month period, the proceeds were exempt at that time, and subsequent use is irrelevant. The Court found no fraud in the timing of the petition to protect the exemption. Therefore, Kettering Construction Company's objection was overruled.

BankruptcyHomestead ExemptionChapter 7State Exemption LawsProceeds of SaleDate of FilingCreditor ObjectionFraud AllegationTexas LawStatutory Interpretation
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Adamowicz v. Internal Revenue Service

Plaintiffs Michael Adamowicz and Elizabeth Fraser, acting as executors of the Estate of Mary Adamowicz, filed an action under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). They sought to compel the production of documents withheld by the IRS, related to three FOIA requests made in December 2005 and April 2007 concerning the IRS's examination of their mother's Estate and ensuing legal disputes. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The Court found that the IRS's searches for responsive documents were adequate and that the withheld documents fell within FOIA exemptions, specifically Exemption 2 (internal agency information), Exemption 3 (statutory exemptions under I.R.C. § 6103), Exemption 5 (privileges like deliberative process, attorney-client, and work-product), Exemption 6 (personnel and medical information), and Exemption 7 (law enforcement purposes, including invasion of privacy and confidential sources). Consequently, the Government's motion for summary judgment was GRANTED, and Plaintiffs' motion was DENIED.

FOIA ExemptionsIRS DisclosureTaxation LitigationAgency Search AdequacyDeliberative ProcessAttorney Work-ProductConfidentiality AssuranceSummary Judgment MotionGovernment Information ActPrivacy Interests
References
49
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 28, 1989

In Re Volpe

This case addresses the objection by NCNB-Texas National Bank to the exemption claimed by Dr. and Mrs. Volpe (Debtors) for their qualified employee profit sharing plan and individual retirement accounts under Chapter 7 bankruptcy. NCNB argued that the relevant Texas Property Code (T.P.C. § 42.0021) was preempted by ERISA and that debtors could only exempt a single account. The court, after an extensive analysis of ERISA's preemption clause and Supreme Court precedents like Mackey, concluded that T.P.C. § 42.0021 is not preempted by ERISA, as its connection to ERISA plans is too remote to be considered regulatory. Furthermore, applying a liberal interpretation of Texas exemption laws, the court determined that a debtor's overall retirement plan, even if held in multiple accounts, is exempt. Therefore, NCNB's objection was overruled, and the debtors' accounts were deemed exempt.

Bankruptcy LawExemption ClaimERISA PreemptionTexas Property CodeRetirement BenefitsProfit Sharing PlanIndividual Retirement AccountsFederal Bankruptcy CodeState Exemption LawSpendthrift Trust
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sage Realty Corp. v. ISS Cleaning Services Group, Inc.

Plaintiffs, consisting of the owners of six commercial buildings and their managing agent, Sage Realty Corporation, brought an antitrust claim against the Realty Advisory Board on Labor Relations, Inc. (RAB) and ISS Cleaning Services Group, Inc. (ISS). The plaintiffs alleged that during a 1996 office building maintenance employee strike in New York City, the defendants engaged in a group boycott. This boycott purportedly blocked union members from returning to work for certain cleaning service contractors, thereby preventing plaintiffs from employing those union members. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the plaintiffs failed to allege a cognizable antitrust injury and that the non-statutory labor exemption barred the claim. The court granted the defendants' motion, concluding that the plaintiffs did not sufficiently demonstrate antitrust injury and that the defendants' conduct was protected by the non-statutory labor exemption.

Antitrust LawGroup BoycottLabor ExemptionCollective BargainingLabor StrikeCleaning Service IndustryCommercial Real Estate MarketMotion to DismissSherman ActNon-Statutory Labor Exemption
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 4,123 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