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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 08, 1994

United States v. Taylor

Matthew Taylor, a co-founder of United Brooklyn (UB), was convicted of attempted extortion and extortion under the Hobbs Act at two construction sites where Flintlock Construction Company was the principal contractor. Taylor moved for a judgment of acquittal, arguing insufficient evidence linked him directly to extorting "money for a Coordinator and employment for members of United Brooklyn" as charged in Counts Twenty-Two and Twenty-Four. He also sought a new trial citing recanted testimony from a key witness, Andrew Weiss. The court denied both motions, concluding that the evidence, including Taylor's role as the de facto head of UB and his active involvement in its extortionate schemes, sufficiently supported the conviction under an aiding and abetting theory. The court found that the alleged recantation was not material and did not undermine the verdict, given the compelling evidence of Taylor's guilt in a "long and persistent scheme" of extortion.

Hobbs ActExtortionAttempted ExtortionConspiracyAiding and AbettingConstruction IndustryRacketeeringOrganized CrimeMotion for AcquittalMotion for New Trial
References
15
Case No. 7951 of 1987
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Forde

This case addresses the legal sufficiency of an indictment for extortion stemming from the enforcement of an otherwise legal contract. Defendant Martin Forde, a business agent for Local 608, allegedly extorted $2,000 from Roger Berk, president of Haywood-Berk Flooring Company, by threatening to use union contract clauses to harm Berk's business. The lower court dismissed the indictment, reasoning that the threatened act was lawful. However, the appellate court reversed, ruling that a lawful act becomes criminal when used to extort money. The indictment was reinstated, affirming sufficient evidence for Grand Jury consideration.

ExtortionGrand LarcenyBribe ReceivingLabor OfficialIndictment SufficiencyCollective Bargaining AgreementUnion CorruptionBusiness AgentPrima Facie EvidenceCriminal Procedure
References
11
Case No. 03 Cr. 0229(NRB)
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Tomero

Louis Moscatiello, one of fifteen defendants associated with the Genovese organized crime family, moved to dismiss his indictment for conspiracy to commit extortion and attempted extortion on double jeopardy grounds. Moscatiello argued that his prior guilty plea in 2004, which granted him immunity for Genovese-related activities between 1978 and 2004, encompassed the current charges. The court, presided over by District Judge Kaplan, applied the Russotti factors to determine if the alleged extortion of "Victim-1" (November 2003 to January 2004) was part of the same pattern of racketeering activity as the prior charges (control over Locals 14, 15, and 530 of various unions). The court found that the current charges involved different co-conspirators and a distinct nature and scope of activity. Consequently, the court denied Moscatiello's motion, concluding that the indictment did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause or his 2004 plea agreement.

Double JeopardyRICOHobbs ActExtortionConspiracyOrganized CrimeGenovese Crime FamilyPlea AgreementImmunityRacketeering Activity
References
16
Case No. Docket No. 4
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Larson

This criminal action involves several defendants, members of Local 17, charged with racketeering conspiracy and Hobbs Act extortion conspiracy. The charges stem from alleged acts of violence, threats, and property damage aimed at coercing construction firms in Western New York into collective bargaining agreements and hiring Local 17 members. The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal, arguing the union's objectives were legitimate. However, the Chief Judge set aside this recommendation, ruling that the alleged tactics fell outside the legal protection for legitimate union activities under both the Hobbs Act and New York extortion law, thus denying the defendants' motions to dismiss the indictment.

RICOHobbs ActExtortionRacketeeringLabor UnionsCriminal ConspiracyFirst AmendmentDue ProcessCollective BargainingStrike Violence
References
54
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Walter Ray Culp, III v. Board of Professional Responsibility for the Supreme Court of Tennessee

Attorney Walter Ray Culp, III, previously suspended for five years due to an attempted extortion conviction, sought reinstatement of his law license. The extortion involved brokering witness testimony for a substantial fee. After serving a nineteen-month prison sentence and the five-year suspension, Culp petitioned for reinstatement. A hearing panel of the Board of Professional Responsibility and the Chancery Court for Williamson County both denied his request. The denials were based on Culp's failure to demonstrate moral qualifications, legal competency, and that his reinstatement would not harm the integrity of the bar or public interest. The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed these decisions, citing Culp's lack of credibility, his unwillingness to accept responsibility for his actions, and the severe nature of his original crime.

Attorney disciplineLaw license reinstatementProfessional misconductAttempted extortionMoral qualificationsLegal competencyCredibility assessmentJudicial reviewAppellate decisionLegal ethics violation
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mathon v. Feldstein

Henry W. Mathon, acting pro se, filed a lawsuit alleging RICO violations, extortion, and employment discrimination against various defendants, including Neil Feldstein, Arthur Salm, and affiliated entities. Mathon claimed he was forced to sign a promissory note and subsequently fired, leading to further threats during a state court collection action. District Judge Spatt granted the defendants' motion to dismiss all federal claims, finding Mathon failed to plead mail fraud, wire fraud, and extortion with sufficient particularity under RICO, and lacked specific facts for employment discrimination. The court declined supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims but allowed Mathon thirty days to file a second amended complaint to address the pleading deficiencies.

RICOExtortionEmployment DiscriminationMotion to DismissFailure to State a ClaimFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureRacketeering ActivityMail FraudWire FraudPromissory Note
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McCormack International Corp. v. Vohra

McCormack International Corp. brought an action against multiple defendants under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), alleging mail fraud, wire fraud, and extortion. The plaintiff claimed that defendants used a scheme involving bad checks and threats from an organized crime figure to remove McCormack from a Tudor Hotel renovation project. The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendations, dismissing the RICO claims for failure to establish a 'pattern of racketeering activity,' specifically lacking sufficient allegations of furtherance of fraud by mail and continuity of criminal activity for extortion. Additionally, the court denied plaintiff's request for leave to amend the complaint, rejected defendants' motion for sanctions, and denied plaintiff's motion for a retroactive enlargement of time to file objections to a prior report.

RICORacketeeringMail FraudWire FraudExtortionCivil ProcedureMotion to DismissRule 9(b)Rule 12(b)(6)Sanctions
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Haviland v. J. Aron & Co.

The case concerns Leo Haviland's claims against J. Aron & Company, an affiliate of his former employer Goldman, Sachs & Co., after Haviland discontinued his action against Goldman. Haviland alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, specifically mail and wire fraud, and attempted extortion, alongside a common law fraud claim. He asserted that Goldman and Aron defrauded him by making false promises about a "Chinese wall" to prevent the disclosure of confidential client information and later attempted to extort him for such information, which led to his termination and reduced compensation for his refusal to cooperate. The court granted Aron's motion to dismiss, ruling that Haviland lacked standing under RICO because his alleged injuries were not directly or proximately caused by the predicate racketeering acts. The court found that the schemes were primarily directed at Goldman's clients, and Haviland's injuries, stemming from his refusal to participate, were too remote to confer RICO standing. Consequently, the RICO claims were dismissed, and the common law fraud claim was dismissed for lack of federal jurisdiction.

RICO ActMail FraudWire FraudHobbs ActStanding (Law)Motion to DismissProximate CauseWrongful TerminationWhistleblowerConfidential Information
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Procon, Inc. v. Wukasch

Procon, Inc., a general contractor, sued Steven Ray Wukasch for wrongful picketing at their Port Arthur, Texas refinery construction site. Wukasch, a former timekeeper terminated for insubordination and low productivity, picketed the site, causing a total labor stoppage among the 800 union workers, resulting in significant daily losses for Procon. The court found Wukasch's actions to be unlawful coercion, fraud, and extortion, not a legitimate labor dispute. Citing irreparable harm to Procon and no adequate remedy at law, the court issued a permanent injunction against Wukasch.

Wrongful PicketingLabor DisputeInjunctionEmployment TerminationCoercionFraudExtortionWork StoppageIrreparable HarmTexas Penal Code
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

DeFoe Corp. v. New York City Department of Transportation

This CPLR article 78 proceeding was initiated by DeFoe Corporation and American Bridge Company, a joint venture, against the New York City Comptroller and Mayor. The core issue was to challenge the denial of a contract registration for repairs to the Madison Avenue Bridge. Petitioners questioned the timeliness of the Comptroller's objection and whether the denial of registration was arbitrary and capricious. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, and finally the Court of Appeals, affirmed the decisions of the Comptroller and Mayor. The courts found that the Comptroller's objection was timely and rationally based on the contractor's past corrupt activities, including tax evasion by principals, failure to disclose violations, and admitted illegal extortion payments.

Contract RegistrationMunicipal Agency ContractCPLR Article 78Arbitrary and CapriciousTimeliness of ObjectionContractor ResponsibilityBusiness IntegrityTax EvasionDisclosure ViolationsExtortion Payments
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 28 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