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
Mar 03, 1998

Lebovits v. Chase Manhattan Bank (In Re Lebovits)

Daniel Lebovits, a Chapter 7 debtor, filed an adversary proceeding to discharge his student loan debt, arguing it imposed an "undue hardship." The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York, Judge Dorothy Eisenberg, found that repayment of the $49,040.12 debt would indeed cause undue hardship for Lebovits and his seven dependents. The court applied the three-prong Brunner test, determining that Lebovits could not maintain a minimal standard of living, his financial difficulties would persist, and he had made good faith efforts to repay. Consequently, the court granted the discharge of the student loans.

Student Loan DischargeUndue HardshipBankruptcy Chapter 7Brunner TestDebtor's DependentsFinancial HardshipMinimal Standard of LivingGood Faith RepaymentReligious FreedomFamily Expenses
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Goldman v. Bank of New York (In Re Goldman)

Cecilia R. Goldman, a Chapter 7 debtor, sought to discharge her student loan obligation from The Bank of New York, guaranteed by NYSHESC, claiming undue hardship due to health issues and related medical expenses. NYSHESC objected, stating that the five-year repayment period had not elapsed and that repayment would not cause undue hardship. The court determined that despite her medical condition, Goldman was employed with a $17,000 annual salary, was single, had no dependents, and had discharged over $13,000 in other debts. The court concluded that Goldman failed to prove the 'hopelessness or exceptional circumstances' necessary for an undue hardship finding under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8)(B), and consequently, her complaint was dismissed.

Student LoanBankruptcyUndue HardshipChapter 7DischargeabilityMedical ConditionFinancial HardshipGuaranteed LoanFederal Bankruptcy CodeDebtor-Creditor Law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Whitehead v. Holston Defense Corporation

Eoscoe E. Whitehead was awarded total and permanent disability under the Workmen’s Compensation Law due to pulmonary fibrosis, an occupational disease contracted during his employment at Holston Defense Corporation. The defendant appealed, challenging the compensability of the disease and alleging lack of proper notice. The Court affirmed the Chancellor's decree, finding substantial evidence of a causal connection between Whitehead's work conditions and his illness. The Court also determined that the employer's medical staff had actual knowledge of Whitehead's condition and concealed it from him. It broadly interpreted T.C.A. sec. 50-1101 to include Whitehead's ailment as a compensable occupational disease, overruling the assignments of error.

Occupational DiseasePulmonary FibrosisWorkers' CompensationTotal Permanent DisabilityCausationEmployer KnowledgeConcealment of ConditionStatutory ConstructionNon-scheduled Occupational DiseaseIndustrial Exposure
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stern v. Education Resources Institute Inc. (In Re Stern)

James E. Stern, a 35-year-old attorney, sought to discharge his student loans totaling over $100,000 under Chapter 7 bankruptcy, arguing "undue hardship" under Code § 523(a)(8). Stern, who recently closed his law practice due to rising malpractice insurance costs and moved to France with his wife, contended he could not maintain a minimal standard of living if forced to repay the loans. Defendants, TERI and ECMC (assignee of ASA), argued Stern failed the three-prong Brunner test for undue hardship. The court found that while Stern met the first prong (current inability to pay), he failed the second, as his financial hardship was not deemed long-term or beyond his reasonable control, particularly given his education, lack of disability, and his choice to move abroad rather than seek employment in the U.S. Consequently, the court denied both a full and partial discharge of his student loan obligations.

student loansundue hardshipbankruptcy dischargeChapter 7Brunner testfinancial difficultylegal careeremployment prospectsinternational relocationeducational debt
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Thoms v. Educational Credit Management Corp. (In Re Thoms)

Kashima Thoms, a Chapter 7 debtor, initiated an adversary proceeding seeking the discharge of her substantial student loan obligations totaling $90,948.58, citing "undue hardship" under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8). Educational Credit Management Corp. (ECMC) became the primary defendant, administering all of Thoms's student loans. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court applied the Second Circuit's stringent three-part Brunner test, which requires demonstrating an inability to maintain a minimal living standard, persistence of this hardship, and good faith repayment efforts. The Court found that Thoms, earning $48,000 annually, had sufficient disposable income, and her financial prospects were likely to improve, particularly with potential changes in childcare expenses and family living arrangements. Crucially, Thoms had made only minimal payments years prior and failed to utilize available loan restructuring options, thereby failing to prove good faith. Consequently, the Court ruled that Thoms did not establish undue hardship, denying the discharge of her student loan debts.

Bankruptcy LawStudent Loan DischargeUndue Hardship DoctrineBrunner TestChapter 7 BankruptcyAdversary ProceedingFinancial DistressRepayment EffortsFederal Student LoansDebtor-Creditor Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Center for Constitutional Rights v. Department of Defense

The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) initiated this Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Department of Defense (DOD), FBI, and CIA, seeking the release of images and videos of detainee Mohammed al-Qahtani from Guantánamo Bay. While the DOD and FBI acknowledged possessing such records but withheld them, the CIA issued a Glomar response, neither confirming nor denying their existence. The Court ultimately denied CCR's motion for partial summary judgment and granted the Government's cross-motion for summary judgment. The decision cited national security concerns, including potential harm to military personnel, extremist recruitment, compromised intelligence efforts, and adverse impacts on international relations, as valid reasons for withholding the records and for the CIA's Glomar response under FOIA Exemption 1.

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)National SecurityClassified InformationGuantánamo BayDetaineeMohammed al-QahtaniSummary JudgmentFOIA ExemptionsGlomar ResponseIntelligence Collection
References
26
Case No. 04-CR-156
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Taveras

Defendant Humberto Pepin Taveras faces a homicide trial where the government seeks the death penalty for the killings of two associates during a drug trafficking dispute. Senior District Judge Jack B. Weinstein addresses the admissibility of a self-defense claim, emphasizing heightened protections for defendants in capital cases and allowing more leeway for evidence favoring the defendant. The defense intends to establish self-defense through witness statements suggesting the victims, José Rosario and Carlos Madrid, had threatened Pepin and his family. The prosecution disputes this, arguing Pepin deliberately sought out and murdered the victims, thereby precluding a self-defense claim as he initiated the confrontations. The court ultimately rules that Pepin will be permitted to argue self-defense, and related evidence will be allowed, with a self-defense instruction to the jury contingent on sufficient proof being presented.

Self-defenseCapital punishmentHomicide trialEvidentiary rulesDrug traffickingDeath penaltyJury instructionsCriminal lawDue processReasonable doubt
References
45
Case No. 2012 WL 3756270
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 2012

American Freedom Defense Initiative v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

This case involves the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), a pro-Israeli advocacy group, challenging the Metropolitan Transit Authority's (MTA) refusal to display a political advertisement on buses. The ad, which called for support for Israel and opposition to Jihad, was rejected by the MTA for violating its 'no-demeaning standard,' which prohibits ads demeaning individuals or groups based on characteristics like religion or national origin. AFDI sought a preliminary injunction, arguing that the standard violated their First Amendment rights. The court found that the MTA's standard was content-based because it selectively prohibited demeaning speech only for certain protected characteristics, while allowing it for others. Consequently, the court granted AFDI's motion for a preliminary injunction, deeming the MTA's standard unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

First AmendmentFreedom of SpeechPolitical AdvertisingPublic Forum DoctrineDesignated Public ForumContent-Based RestrictionStrict ScrutinyPreliminary InjunctionMetropolitan Transportation AuthorityAdvertising Standards
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 26, 1999

Rothe Development Corp. v. United States Department of Defense

Rothe Development Corporation, a San Antonio-based company, sued the United States Department of Defense after losing a contract due to an evaluation preference favoring "socially and economically disadvantaged persons" under the 1207 program (10 U.S.C. § 2323). Rothe, the low bidder, argued this preference violated its Fifth Amendment equal protection rights. The government contended the preference met strict scrutiny standards. The court considered cross-motions for summary judgment, ultimately granting the government's motion and denying Rothe's. The decision affirmed that Congress has a compelling interest in remedying past discrimination in government contracting and found the 1207 program, with its rebuttable presumptions and limited duration, to be narrowly tailored, rejecting Rothe's arguments regarding burden of proof, neutral alternatives, and the impact on third parties.

Affirmative ActionEqual ProtectionStrict ScrutinyGovernment ContractsSmall Disadvantaged Businesses1207 ProgramFifth AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentRacial PreferencesSummary Judgment
References
47
Case No. 86 B 11270 (BRL)
Regular Panel Decision

Iles v. LTV Aerospace & Defense Co. (In Re Chateaugay Corp.)

This case is an appeal to the District Court concerning two proofs of claim filed in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding against LTV Aerospace and Defense Company. The bankruptcy court had disallowed and expunged these claims, filed by the "lies plaintiffs" (nine women employees/applicants) and the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), arguing that class proofs of claim are impermissible. The District Court reversed this decision, holding that class proofs of claim are permissible under the Bankruptcy Code. It also affirmed that the UAW was authorized to file claims on behalf of its members, both as a creditor in its own right and as an authorized agent. The court found that the legislative history and policy of the Bankruptcy Code support allowing class proofs of claim and that the UAW had properly identified claimants and followed filing requirements.

Bankruptcy LawClass ActionProofs of ClaimChapter 11 ReorganizationCreditor RightsDebtorGender DiscriminationCivil Rights Act of 1964Labor UnionAuthorized Agent
References
30
Showing 1-10 of 2,855 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