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. 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. 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
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. 01CV6456 (ADS)(ARL)
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 23, 2002

Arena v. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES OF NASSAU

Glen Arena, a pro se plaintiff, filed a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Department of Social Services of Nassau County, its employees, a Family Court Justice, and attorneys. Arena alleged violations of his due process and equal protection rights stemming from state Family Court proceedings regarding the custody and visitation of his son. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed counts one, two, and three based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and the Younger abstention doctrine, citing a lack of federal court jurisdiction to review state court judgments. Additionally, the court granted Judge Richard S. Lawrence absolute judicial immunity and dismissed all claims against him. Claims against defendant Edward Emanuele, a law guardian, were dismissed because he was not a state actor for purposes of Section 1983, and conspiracy allegations against him were found to be vague. The case was closed against most defendants, leaving only Genna Currie.

Civil RightsDue ProcessEqual ProtectionRooker-Feldman DoctrineYounger Abstention DoctrineJudicial ImmunityState ActorFamily LawChild CustodyVisitation Rights
References
69
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

North Star Reinsurance Corp. v. Continental Insurance

The court addresses the novel legal issue of "preindemnification" and the application of the "antisubrogation rule" in cases involving disputes among insurance carriers over work site injuries. It rejects the "preindemnification" doctrine, which contractors asserted would prioritize owners' insurance coverage over their own, citing lack of support from contractual language, premium disparities, or common-law indemnification principles. However, the court affirms and extends the narrower antisubrogation rule, preventing an insurer from seeking recovery from its own insured for the same risk, even when multiple policies are involved. This rule is applied to bar subrogation claims in the cases of Prince and Valentin, but not in North Star due to specific policy exclusions.

Insurance LawIndemnificationSubrogationPreindemnification DoctrineAntisubrogation RuleWorkers' CompensationGeneral Contractors' Liability (GCL) InsuranceOwners' Contractors' Protective (OCP) InsuranceVicarious LiabilityContractual Obligation
References
29
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

Jureli, LLC v. Schaefer

Jureli, LLC, commenced a federal action against Randy Schaefer, Esq., challenging the validity of Schaefer's appointment as a receiver in New York State Supreme Court, alleging constitutional and common law violations due to lack of notice. Schaefer moved for a judgment on the pleadings to dismiss the complaint. The federal court, however, *sua sponte* determined it must abstain from exercising subject matter jurisdiction under the *Younger* abstention doctrine. The court found that ongoing state proceedings, including civil contempt actions against Jureli, LLC, implicated important state interests in enforcing court orders and zoning laws. Consequently, the federal court denied the defendant's motion without prejudice and remanded the case to the state court.

Younger abstention doctrineCivil enforcement proceedingsContempt proceedingsZoning and land use regulationFederal court jurisdictionRemand to state courtProperty rights deprivationConstitutional violationsReceiver appointmentFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c)
References
32
Showing 1-10 of 511 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