David Goetzke v. Ferro Corporation and Crawford & Company

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that one-year lapse between filing for benefits and discharge does not support an inference of retaliatory intent
• holding that one-year lapse between filing for benefits and dis- charge does not support an inference of retaliatory intent
• holding that an exclusivity defense under Indiana Worker's Compensation Act did not affect subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship; defense addressed merits of claim
• noting that evidence of phone calls between alleged conspirators, standing alone, is indicative only of the fact that the individuals stayed in touch
• analyzing changes in Indiana law wrought by the statute and Samm
• “Once Congress has conferred subject matter jurisdiction on the federal courts, state law cannot expand or contract that grant of authority.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).