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

O'ROURKE v. Smithsonian Institution Press

Kevin O'Rourke filed a copyright infringement action against the Smithsonian Institution Press and The Smithsonian Institution, alleging they infringed his book "Currier and Ives: The Irish in America" by publishing "Currier and Ives: America Imagined." The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, asserting that 28 U.S.C. § 1498(b) grants exclusive jurisdiction over copyright claims against the United States to the Court of Federal Claims. O'Rourke contended that the defendants were independent entities not falling under "the United States" for the statute's purposes. The Court, however, found that "the United States" in Section 1498(b) should be interpreted broadly, encompassing the Smithsonian Institution and its press, referencing previous rulings where the Smithsonian was considered part of the federal government. Consequently, the Court concluded it lacked subject matter jurisdiction and granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, closing the case.

Copyright InfringementSubject Matter JurisdictionFederal Copyright ActCourt of Federal ClaimsSmithsonian InstitutionUnited StatesSovereign ImmunityMotion to Dismiss28 U.S.C. § 1498(b)Tucker Act
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. State of New York

The United States sued the State of New York and several state entities, including SBOE, SUNY, and CUNY, alleging violations of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA). The core issue was whether state-funded Disabled Student Services (DSS) offices at public colleges and universities, including SUNY and CUNY campuses and community colleges, must be designated as mandatory voter registration agencies (VRAs) under 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-5(a)(2)(B). The State defendants argued these offices were not 'primarily engaged' in serving persons with disabilities, and that the NVRA did not apply to them. The Court rejected the defendants' arguments regarding subject matter jurisdiction and the interpretation of the NVRA, citing legislative intent and prior circuit court decisions. The Court concluded that DSS offices at all SUNY and CUNY campuses and their respective community colleges are indeed state-funded programs primarily engaged in providing services to persons with disabilities, and therefore must be designated as mandatory VRAs. The plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was granted.

National Voter Registration Act (NVRA)Voter Registration Agencies (VRAs)Disabled Student Services (DSS)State-funded programsPublic universitiesCommunity collegesFederalismSummary judgmentDeclaratory reliefInjunctive relief
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 15, 2008

Brown v. New York State Department of Correctional Services

Plaintiff Curtis Brown, an African-American Correction Officer, sued his employer, the New York State Department of Correctional Services (DOCS), and other defendants, alleging severe and continual racial harassment, discrimination, and retaliation by his white coworkers. He filed multiple administrative charges and then commenced this action asserting claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and the New York State Human Rights Law. The court addressed the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing claims against individual defendants under Title VII, various institutional defendants, all constructive discharge claims, and state law claims due to Eleventh Amendment immunity or the election of remedies. However, the court denied summary judgment on Brown's Title VII hostile work environment and retaliation claims against DOCS, and his 42 U.S.C. § 1981 claims against individual defendants, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding the pervasive nature of harassment and the adequacy of the employer's remedial actions.

Racial DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationEmployment LawTitle VIISection 1981Section 1983Eleventh AmendmentSummary Judgment MotionCorrectional Services
References
76
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. CA 16-00663
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2017

INTERNATIONAL UNION (DISTRICT) v. NEW YORK STATE DEPT. OF LABOR

This case involves an appeal concerning the interpretation of Labor Law § 220 (3-e) in New York, specifically regarding the prevailing wage for glazier apprentices on public works projects. Plaintiffs, a consortium of unions, individuals, and businesses, challenged the New York State Department of Labor's (DOL) interpretation that glazier apprentices performing work classified for another trade (like ironworkers) must be paid at the journeyman rate for that other trade. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint, upholding the DOL's position. However, the Appellate Division reversed this decision, ruling that Labor Law § 220 (3-e) permits glazier apprentices registered in a bona fide program to be paid apprentice rates, irrespective of whether the work performed falls under a different trade classification. The court concluded that the DOL's interpretation was contrary to the plain meaning of the statute and thus not entitled to deference.

Apprenticeship ProgramsLabor LawPublic Works ProjectsGlaziersIronworkersPrevailing WageStatutory InterpretationNew York State Department of LaborDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate Review
References
33
Case No. 121778, 121782
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2018

Jimerson v. State of New York

Claimants, Joshua A. Jimerson (as Administrator of Patricia A. John's Estate) and Kenneth Vanaernam, sought damages for wrongful death and injuries after falling through a hole on the Red House Bridge (RHB). The bridge, built by the State of New York in 1930, is located within the sovereign land of the Seneca Nation of Indians. Despite a history of confusion regarding maintenance responsibility, a 1976 Memorandum of Understanding and a 2007 Project Specific Agreement had indicated the State's involvement. The Court of Claims initially denied the claimants' motion for partial summary judgment on the State's duty to maintain the bridge. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed this decision, ruling that Highway Law § 53 unambiguously obligates the State to maintain highways and bridges it constructed on Indian reservation land, thereby establishing the State's statutory duty.

Wrongful DeathPersonal InjuryHighway MaintenanceBridge CollapseState ResponsibilityStatutory DutySummary JudgmentIndian ReservationNew York State Department of TransportationSeneca Nation of Indians
References
0
Case No. 98-CV-1117 (LEK/RWS)
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 09, 1998

Galusha v. NEW YORK STATE DEPT. ENVIRON. CONSERV.

Plaintiffs, individuals with physical disabilities, sued the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Adirondack Park Agency, and the State of New York, alleging that their policies in managing the Adirondack Park unfairly limit their access to certain areas in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). They sought a preliminary injunction to allow them to use motorized vehicles on restricted trails. The Court found that the defendants' policy had a disparate impact on disabled persons and that allowing limited, necessary motorized access on roads already used by non-disabled personnel would not fundamentally alter the Park program. Therefore, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, mandating access to specific roads for persons with certified mobility impairment disabilities.

Americans with Disabilities ActADAAdirondack ParkEnvironmental ConservationMotorized Vehicle AccessMobility ImpairmentPreliminary InjunctionDisparate ImpactPublic AccommodationsState Government Action
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

2169 Central Ltd. v. New York State Liquor Authority

Petitioners 2169 Central Ltd., operator of Shenanigan's Bar, and its president Lewis D. Cross, challenged a determination by the State Liquor Authority (SLA) which imposed a $3,000 civil penalty for employing unlicensed security guards. The petitioners initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding, contending that the SLA exceeded its statutory authority and that its determination was not supported by substantial evidence. The court found that the SLA possessed the statutory authority to regulate and penalize licensees for violating its regulations, specifically 9 NYCRR 48.3 regarding conformance with governmental regulations. Furthermore, the court determined that the SLA's decision was supported by substantial evidence, including police investigator testimony, sworn employee statements, and Department of State certifications, which confirmed the employment of unlicensed security guards. Consequently, the court confirmed the SLA's determination and dismissed the petition.

Liquor LicenseUnlicensed Security GuardsCivil PenaltyStatutory AuthoritySubstantial EvidenceAdministrative LawAlbany CountyNew YorkAdult Entertainment ClubLiquor Control Law
References
8
Case No. 02-CV-6666L
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 29, 2008

Brown v. NEW YORK STATE DEPT. OF CORREC. SERVICES

Plaintiff, Curtis Brown, a Correction Officer, sued his employer, the New York State Department of Correctional Services (DOCS), and several individuals for racial discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, Sections 1981, 1983, and the New York Human Rights Law. Brown alleged a hostile work environment due to continuous harassment, verbal abuse, and physical violence by white coworkers at Elmira Correctional Facility since 2001, along with retaliatory discipline. Defendants sought summary judgment. The court dismissed claims against individual defendants under Title VII, all claims against Elmira, the State Comptroller, Civil Service, and all constructive discharge claims due to Eleventh Amendment immunity or other legal deficiencies. However, the court denied summary judgment on Brown's Title VII hostile work environment and retaliation claims against DOCS, finding sufficient evidence of fact disputes for these claims to proceed to trial.

Racial DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationEmployment LawTitle VIICivil Rights ActSection 1981Section 1983Human Rights LawSummary Judgment Motion
References
83
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
Showing 1-10 of 9,013 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