contract partner or tortfeasor, the post-petition tortfeasor cannot generally be held to have notice of the debtor’s bankruptcy, and of the risk that it will be haled into bankruptcy court. Granted, one court, in a Chapter 7 case, has found that the mere fact that a tort claim arises from post-petition conduct can support a holding that the claim is a core proceeding in bankruptcy. Matter of O’Sullivan’s Fuel Oil Co., 88 B.R. 17, 20 (D.Conn.1988). However, I am unpersuaded that the fact that a claim arises post-petition can, without more, transform the claim into a core proceeding. See In re CIS Corporation, 172 B.R. at 758 (conversion action is non-core even if asserted post-petition); cf. also In re Lipstein, 94 Civ. 7100 (LLS), 1995 WL 675486, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 1995), (<HOLDING>). C. Whether the Bankruptcy Court May Conduct A
recognizing that any claims compensable under the act could not be brought by nonemployee spouse except for intentional tort claims holding that this language applies to tort claims brought under the federal tort claims act  against a contractor who has a selfdetermination contract holding section 101106f cannot be used by employees to obtain dismissal of common law intentional tort claims because those claims could not have been brought under the texas tort claims act holding that tort actions brought against a state actor must be brought in the illinois court of claims and the district courts dismissal of such claims was proper holding that tort claims that could have been brought outside the bankruptcy environment are noncore without discussing whether claims were brought pre or postpetition