CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. 03 Civ.2559 LAK
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 24, 2004

National Council of La Raza v. DEPARTMENT OF JUST.

Plaintiff advocacy organizations brought an action against the Department of Justice under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to compel the production of records concerning the authority of state and local police to enforce immigration laws. The Department withheld documents, asserting the deliberative process privilege under FOIA Exemption 5. The Court found that while most withheld documents qualified for the privilege, the Department had waived it for a key April 2002 Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memorandum by publicly incorporating its conclusions into agency policy. Consequently, the court partially granted and partially denied the Department's motion for summary judgment, ordering in camera review for some documents and directing the production of the April 2002 OLC memorandum to the plaintiffs.

FOIADeliberative Process PrivilegeAttorney-Client PrivilegeWaiverSummary JudgmentImmigration LawState AuthorityFederal PreemptionOLC OpinionDepartment of Justice
References
35
Case No. 01CV6456 (ADS)(ARL)
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 23, 2002

Arena v. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES OF NASSAU

Glen Arena, a pro se plaintiff, filed a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Department of Social Services of Nassau County, its employees, a Family Court Justice, and attorneys. Arena alleged violations of his due process and equal protection rights stemming from state Family Court proceedings regarding the custody and visitation of his son. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed counts one, two, and three based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and the Younger abstention doctrine, citing a lack of federal court jurisdiction to review state court judgments. Additionally, the court granted Judge Richard S. Lawrence absolute judicial immunity and dismissed all claims against him. Claims against defendant Edward Emanuele, a law guardian, were dismissed because he was not a state actor for purposes of Section 1983, and conspiracy allegations against him were found to be vague. The case was closed against most defendants, leaving only Genna Currie.

Civil RightsDue ProcessEqual ProtectionRooker-Feldman DoctrineYounger Abstention DoctrineJudicial ImmunityState ActorFamily LawChild CustodyVisitation Rights
References
69
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Moss v. Department of Civil Service

The petitioner, a Senior Youth Parole Worker, initiated an Article 78 proceeding challenging the State Department of Civil Service's requirement of a Master's degree for the Youth Parole Supervisor promotion examination. His application was denied due to the lack of this degree, despite his advanced graduate study and prior assurances of eligibility based on earlier prerequisites. The court affirmed the Civil Service Department's broad discretion in establishing minimum qualifications for competitive examinations. It ruled that earlier prerequisites or unauthorized assurances do not confer a vested right to bypass current requirements, which are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the State Department of Civil Service. Consequently, the application was denied, and the petition dismissed.

Civil Service LawPromotion ExaminationEducational RequirementsMaster's DegreeYouth Parole SupervisorDiscretionVested RightsArticle 78 ProceedingState EmployeesCivil Service Commission
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 02, 2009

Long v. United States Department of Justice

Plaintiffs Susan B. Long and David Burnham brought an action against the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to challenge the DOJ's response to their requests for records from the CASES database. They alleged inadequate search, improper withholding of records under FOIA exemptions, and failure to segregate non-exempt information. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the adequacy of the search, the withholding of JCON IDs, attorney time reporting, and the redaction of sealed cases. Conversely, the court granted the plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment, ordering the release of vaccine type and date of administration. Summary judgment was otherwise denied without prejudice for both parties on several other exemption claims, requiring supplemental declarations.

FOIA LitigationFreedom of Information ActGovernment RecordsData AccessibilityConfidential InformationAttorney-Client PrivilegeWork Product DoctrineExemption LawPrivacy ConcernsSealed Cases
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC v. New York State Department of State

Petitioners, identified as the owners and operators of Indian Point Energy Center, appealed a judgment that dismissed their challenge to a modification by respondents, the Secretary of State, Department of Environmental Conservation, and Department of State. The modification extended a statutorily protected environmental habitat in the Hudson River, now called 'Hudson Highlands,' impacting the area near Indian Point. Petitioners argued that the modification lacked a rational scientific basis, constituted formal rulemaking without proper procedure, and that the denial of their discovery requests was an abuse of discretion. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, deferring to the agencies' interpretation of their regulations and finding the modification rational, not formal rulemaking, and the discovery denial justified.

Environmental ProtectionHabitat ModificationAgency DeferenceCPLR Article 78Declaratory JudgmentRegulatory InterpretationScientific EvidenceFormal RulemakingAdministrative ProcedureDiscovery Denial
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fickling v. New York State Department of Civil Service

This case involves a lawsuit brought by eight plaintiffs, primarily African-American and Hispanic former employees, against the New York State Department of Civil Service and Westchester County Department of Social Services. Plaintiffs alleged that their termination as Welfare Eligibility Examiners, due to failing competitive examinations, was unlawful under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the New York State Executive Law § 296. They claimed the examination had a racially disparate impact and lacked content validity, failing to serve the defendants' employment goal of fair competition. The court found that the examinations indeed had a disparate impact on African-Americans and Hispanics and that the defendants failed to provide credible evidence that the tests served a legitimate business goal. Therefore, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VII Civil Rights ActDisparate ImpactCivil Service ExaminationsContent ValidityJob AnalysisRacial DiscriminationHispanic DiscriminationWelfare Eligibility ExaminersNew York State Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2004

National Council of La Raza v. Department of Justice

Plaintiff advocacy organizations brought this Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) action to compel the Department of Justice (DOJ) to produce records concerning the authority of state and local police to enforce immigration laws. The DOJ asserted that the documents were protected by Exemption 5, citing deliberative process and attorney-client privileges. The court found that most withheld documents were covered by the deliberative process privilege. However, it ruled that the DOJ waived its privilege for the April 2002 Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memorandum (Document 28) because the Attorney General and his representatives repeatedly invoked it publicly to justify their policy. Consequently, the court partially granted and partially denied the DOJ's motion for summary judgment, ordering the production of Document 28 and requiring in camera inspection for documents 23-25.

FOIA LitigationDeliberative Process Privilege WaiverGovernment TransparencyImmigration Law Enforcement AuthorityDepartment of Justice PolicyOffice of Legal Counsel OpinionsSummary Judgment RulingInter-agency CommunicationAttorney-Client PrivilegeDocument Disclosure
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McClernon v. Beaver Dams Volunteer Fire Department, Inc.

Plaintiff Michael J. McClernon, Sr., a former President of the Beaver Dams Volunteer Fire Department, sued the Department under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming his civil rights were violated when he was suspended and expelled. McClernon alleged retaliation for exercising his freedom of speech after writing a letter to the U.S. Fire Administration, complaining about unequal grant money distribution and alleging misuse of funds by other fire departments. The court found that while his speech touched on public concern, it had a damaging effect on inter-departmental relations and caused disruption within the Beaver Dams Department. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment to the defendant, concluding that the department was justified in expelling McClernon due to the detrimental impact of his speech.

Civil RightsFirst AmendmentFreedom of SpeechRetaliationPublic EmployeeVolunteer Fire DepartmentSummary JudgmentPublic ConcernInter-organizational CooperationWorkplace Disruption
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anderberg v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

The petitioners, residents along Clove Road, initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding against the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and Ulster County Department of Public Works (Ulster County). The proceeding challenged DEC's decision to issue a stream disturbance permit for the replacement of a bridge on Clove Road, arguing that the project required a full State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) review, including an environmental assessment form (EAF). DEC and Ulster County classified the project as a Type II action, asserting it was a "replacement in kind" and thus exempt from comprehensive SEQRA review. The court found that the respondents had adequately considered environmental factors and that their classification of the project was not arbitrary or capricious. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, ruling that no further SEQRA review was necessary. Additionally, the court denied the petitioners' motion for a default judgment against the Town of Gardiner concerning two other bridges, deeming the request premature.

Environmental LawSEQRA ComplianceBridge ConstructionAdministrative ReviewType II ActionStream Disturbance PermitPublic Works ProjectJudicial ScrutinyUlster CountyNew York State DEC
References
7
Case No. 94 Civ. 0527 (SS)
Regular Panel Decision

Dow Jones & Co. v. United States Department of Justice

This opinion and order by District Judge Sotomayor addresses Lisa Foster's motion to intervene in a case where Dow Jones & Company, Inc. and Robert L. Bartley sought to compel the Department of Justice (DOJ) to release a note written by former Deputy White House Counsel Vincent W. Foster. Previously, the court had enjoined the DOJ from withholding the note. Mrs. Foster, Mr. Foster's widow, moved to intervene to appeal the January 5, 1995 order that mandated the release of the note. The court granted Mrs. Foster's motion to intervene, both as of right under Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a) and permissively under Rule 24(b). The decision highlighted Mrs. Foster's acute interest in preventing the release of the note due to personal privacy concerns and the potential divergence of interests with the DOJ regarding an appeal, ruling that her interest would not be adequately protected otherwise.

Intervention of RightPermissive InterventionFreedom of Information ActSummary JudgmentPrivacy InterestAppellate ReviewTimeliness of MotionAdequate RepresentationExemption 7(A)Exemption 7(C)
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 5,088 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational