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

Socialist Workers Party v. Attorney General of United States

This case centers on an action brought by the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) and its youth arm, the Young Socialist Alliance (YSA), against the United States and various government officials. The plaintiffs alleged pervasive illegal activities by the FBI and other federal agencies, including systematic harassment, infiltration, disruption, and surveillance. The court found that the FBI engaged in unconstitutional disruption activities and surreptitious entries, and improperly used informants to gather private information on lawful political activities. As a result, the SWP and YSA were awarded $264,000 in damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act. However, claims for electronic surveillance damages and damages sought by individual plaintiffs were dismissed, and most requests for broad declaratory and injunctive relief were denied, except for an injunction ordering the segregation and limited dissemination of illegally obtained government documents.

FBI MisconductGovernment SurveillancePolitical OrganizationsFirst Amendment RightsCivil Rights LitigationFederal Tort Claims ActInfiltrationDisruption ProgramsSurreptitious EntriesInformants
References
141
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 1985

United States v. $100 in United States Currency

The United States initiated an in rem forfeiture action against $100,000 in U.S. currency, alleging it originated from illegal drug transactions. Claimants Jose Martinez-Torres and Nancy Medina asserted the funds were legitimate lottery winnings. The government sought summary judgment, arguing issue preclusion from a prior Nebbia bail hearing where Medina's lottery claim was found incredible. The Court granted partial summary judgment for the government, establishing probable cause for forfeiture. However, it denied the application of offensive collateral estoppel for full summary judgment, citing the distinct procedural environment and limited scope of the Nebbia hearing, and ruled that claimants are entitled to a plenary trial to prove the legitimate source of the funds.

ForfeitureDrug Trafficking ProceedsCollateral EstoppelIssue PreclusionSummary JudgmentProbable CauseIn Rem ForfeitureBail HearingDue Process ConcernsPuerto Rican Lottery
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 07, 1994

United Transportation Union Local Unions 385 & 77 v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad

This is a declaratory judgment action filed by the United Transportation Union and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (collectively, 'the Union') against Metro-North Commuter Railroad Company ('Metro'). The Union challenges Metro's Rule P as a violation of 45 U.S.C. § 60 (Section 60) of the Federal Employer's Liability Act (FELA). Rule P restricts employees from divulging company information or giving statements about accidents to external parties without company authorization, which the Union argues prevents employees from voluntarily furnishing information to interested parties as protected by Section 60. Metro moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, contending the dispute is governed by the Railway Labor Act (RLA) and its exclusive grievance resolution procedures. The court denied Metro's motion, concluding that the Union's claim involves the interpretation of a federal statute (Section 60) and is therefore within federal jurisdiction, not preempted by the RLA.

Federal Employer's Liability ActFELARailway Labor ActRLASubject Matter JurisdictionDeclaratory JudgmentRule 12(b)Labor DisputesCollective Bargaining AgreementPreemption
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. DiPaolo

Plaintiff, the United States government, sued Salvatore DiPaolo, Jr. for failing to comply with a final administrative order issued by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding violations of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) for two underground diesel fuel storage tanks in Yonkers, New York. DiPaolo failed to comply with pre-hearing procedures, did not attend the administrative hearing, and subsequently defaulted on civil penalties of $80,317 and compliance orders. The government initiated this action to enforce the ALJ's default order and seek additional civil penalties for continued noncompliance and failure to provide requested information. The District Court granted the government's motion for default judgment as to liability, affirming the original $80,317 penalty under *res judicata*. Additionally, the court assessed $9,364.14 for persistent noncompliance and a nominal $1 penalty for failing to furnish information, totaling $89,682.14, and issued injunctive relief requiring compliance with EPA requirements or permanent closure of the tanks, and submission of the requested information.

Environmental LawRCRAUST ViolationsEPA EnforcementDefault JudgmentCivil PenaltiesInjunctive ReliefRes JudicataRegulatory NoncomplianceFederal Litigation
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 02, 1996

Doe v. United States

Plaintiffs Jane and John Doe filed an action under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) against the United States, seeking damages for injuries Jane Doe sustained after being pricked by an HIV-infected patient's needle during a phlebotomy rotation at the Buffalo Veterans’ Administration Medical Center (VAMC). The plaintiffs allege gross negligence, breach of contract, and wrongful disclosure of confidential information, claiming emotional distress and loss of consortium. The government moved to dismiss, asserting that the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act (FECA) provides the exclusive remedy, as a FECA claim for Ms. Doe's puncture wound had been accepted. The court denied the government's motion to dismiss but ordered a stay of proceedings, ruling that a substantial question exists regarding FECA's applicability and Ms. Doe's employee status, which must be definitively determined by the Secretary of Labor before the court can proceed with the FTCA claims.

Federal Tort Claims ActFederal Employees' Compensation ActSubject Matter JurisdictionSovereign ImmunityExclusive RemedyJudicial ReviewEmployee Status DisputeEmotional Distress ClaimLoss of ConsortiumMedical Negligence
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Foster Wheeler Corp.

This case concerns a dispute between the United States Government, through its Agency for International Development (AID), and Manufacturers Hanover Trust Company (MHT) over an allegedly erroneous payment. MHT, acting as a confirming bank, paid Cargo Export Corporation (CEC) based on documentation AID claimed did not comply with the terms of a Letter of Credit related to a fertilizer plant project in Bangladesh. AID sought to recover the reimbursed amount and penalties under the Foreign Assistance Act, alleging MHT should have known the documents were false. MHT moved for summary judgment, challenging AID's standing and the applicability of the Act. The court granted MHT's motion regarding the Letter of Credit and Letter of Commitment claims, concluding AID lacked standing or failed to state a claim. However, the court denied MHT's motion for summary judgment concerning the False Claims Act, ruling that confirming banks can be 'persons' under the Act and that a triable issue of fact exists regarding MHT's prudence.

Letter of Credit disputeConfirming bank liabilityFalse Claims Act litigationForeign Assistance ActSummary judgment motionsStanding doctrineContract interpretationInternational banking lawDocumentary credit fraudGovernment agency oversight
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

De Blasio v. United States

This action was brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act by Jean and Clifton DeBlasio against the United States for personal injuries sustained by Jean at the Gateway Sports Center. The plaintiffs alleged negligence due to protruding cement nodules on a sidewalk. The United States moved for summary judgment, asserting it could not be sued for the acts or omissions of its independent contractors. The court found that Shields and Dean Concessions, Inc., which operated the Sports Center, was an independent contractor and that the government lacked day-to-day supervisory control. Consequently, the Federal Tort Claims Act did not apply, and the motion for summary judgment was granted, finding the United States immune from suit.

Federal Tort Claims ActSovereign ImmunityIndependent ContractorSummary JudgmentPersonal InjuryNegligenceGovernment LiabilityConcessionaireNational Park ServiceControl Test
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Petrenko v. United States

Plaintiff John Petrenko filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the United States, alleging civil rights violations including negligent beating, false arrest, and false imprisonment stemming from a 1988 incident with United States Park Police officers. Petrenko sought $10 million in damages. The Government moved for summary judgment, which the court granted. The court ruled that the United States is immune from § 1983 suits and that prior state court findings of probable cause precluded the false arrest and imprisonment claims. Petrenko's negligent beating claim was dismissed due to insufficient evidence, and his state claim for vehicle impoundment costs was also dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as adequate state remedies exist.

42 U.S.C. § 1983Civil Rights ViolationFalse ArrestFalse ImprisonmentNegligent BeatingSummary JudgmentSovereign ImmunityCollateral EstoppelProbable CauseFederal Question Jurisdiction
References
18
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 00653 [179 AD3d 1412]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 30, 2020

Matter of James v. Home Comfort Assistance, Inc.

Claimant Christina James sought workers' compensation benefits after sustaining a work-related ankle injury. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge established an employer-employee relationship and awarded benefits. Home Comfort Assistance, Inc. appealed this decision to the Workers' Compensation Board, but their application for review was denied due to incompleteness; specifically, referring to attached pages for the "Basis for Appeal" instead of providing the information directly on the form RB-89. Home Comfort then appealed the Board's denial to the Appellate Division, Third Department. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that the Board acted within its discretion by refusing to consider an application that did not fully comply with 12 NYCRR 300.13 (b) (1).

Workers' CompensationAppellate ReviewIncomplete ApplicationForm RB-89Administrative ReviewDiscretionary AuthorityProcedural ComplianceThird DepartmentEmployer-Employee RelationshipJurisdictional Defect
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Strehle v. United States

Seaman Richard Frances Meyer died on a United States Navy vessel due to entrapment in ropes from a malfunctioning winch. His administratrix, Loretta Strehle, sued the United States under the Public Vessels Act, Jones Act, and Death on the High Seas Act, alleging negligence and unseaworthiness. The court found the United States liable, citing the uncorrected defects in the winches and their "deadman" safety feature. The court rejected the claim of Meyer's contributory negligence. Plaintiff was awarded $28,600 for loss of income to Meyer’s dependents (his four sisters) and $50,000 for Meyer's pain and suffering prior to death, totaling $78,600.

Admiralty LawJones ActDeath on the High Seas ActPublic Vessels ActMaritime NegligenceVessel UnseaworthinessWrongful DeathPain and SufferingLoss of SupportComparative Negligence
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 2,852 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