United States v. Western Processing Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that Burford abstention did not apply because the plaintiffs “challenge[d] [the defendant’s] fraudulent conduct, rather than New York’s regulatory scheme”
• concluding that Burford abstention did not apply because the plaintiffs “challenge[d] [the defendant’s] fraudulent conduct, rather than New York’s regulatory scheme”
• declining to abstain from exercising jurisdiction under Burford in a case alleging that medical providers billed an insurer for services not lawfully rendered under New York’s no-fault insurance law

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).