Houston v. Newark Boxboard Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “removal does not. . .require the consent of nominal defendants,” and determining that a worker’s compensation insurer was a nominal defendant because no cause of action was alleged against it
• holding that, while § 102.29 of the Wisconsin Worker’s Compensation Act “may regulate the prosecution of the plaintiffs [personal injury] claims, those claims do not ‘arise under’ the state workmen’s compensation laws, but rather under the common law of tort”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).