Arthur v. Dupont Nemours & Co., Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a “deliberate intent” claim did not arise out of the workmen’s compensation laws because it was not integrally related to the workers’ compensation system and did not protect or enhance the ability of workers to obtain compensation benefits
• noting “the sharp distinction between a retaliatory discharge claim and the Mandolidis claim” addressed in Arthur (emphasis added)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).