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
Apr 21, 1983

People v. Alyakoub

The defendant, Justice Alyakoub, was apprehended at Kennedy Airport with a significant amount of marihuana and subsequently pleaded guilty to criminal possession in the first degree. A plea bargain for a split sentence of five years' probation with six months' jail time was initially agreed upon. However, the court identified an incongruity in Penal Law § 70.00(4), which ostensibly excluded certain marihuana offenses under Article 221 from its alternative definite sentencing provisions, potentially mandating a harsher sentence than for more serious concentrated cannabis offenses under Article 220. Judge Cornelius J. O’Brien's opinion explored whether this legislative oversight violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Applying a rational basis test, the court found no legitimate state purpose for the discriminatory treatment and, to avoid unconstitutionality, construed Penal Law § 70.00(4) to include class C felonies specified in Article 221, thereby upholding the plea bargain and sentencing the defendant to the agreed-upon split sentence.

Criminal LawDrug OffensesMarihuana PossessionConstitutional ChallengeEqual ProtectionStatutory ConstructionSentencingPlea AgreementsNew York Penal LawJudicial Interpretation
References
24
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

Roman v. Schweiker

The plaintiff, Magdalena Roman, appealed a denial of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. The case was previously remanded by the District Court to the Secretary of Health and Human Services for a more specific determination regarding whether her physical impairments prevented her from returning to her former work. Subsequently, Roman filed an application for attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). The Court denied this application, holding that Roman was not a "prevailing party" within the meaning of the EAJA. The Court reasoned that a remand for additional evidence, without a substantive determination on the merits of her disability claim, was not sufficient to establish her as a prevailing party.

Attorney's FeesEqual Access to Justice ActPrevailing PartyRemandSupplemental Security IncomeDisability BenefitsSocial SecurityAppellate PracticeStatutory InterpretationFederal Courts
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Louis

This judicial opinion addresses a claim by Consultants for Criminal Justice Alternatives (CCJA) for $1,260 in compensation, under County Law § 722-c, for 28 hours of prepleading and presentence 'other than counsel services' provided to an un-named criminal defendant. Judge Budd G. Goodman approved 27 hours of service but reduced the hourly rate from $45 to $30, awarding $810. The court denied compensation for clerical activities. The decision extensively discussed criteria for 'reasonable compensation' based on service provider qualifications and service nature, and affirmed the existence of 'extraordinary circumstances' allowing compensation above the $300 statutory limit.

Compensation ClaimCounty Law § 722-cOther Than Counsel ServicesPrepleading ReportPresentence ReportExtraordinary CircumstancesHourly Rate DeterminationParaprofessional ServicesCriminal DefenseSocial Work Standards
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 01, 2015

People v. Brian M.

Brian M., a 19-year-old, was charged with a drug sale and pleaded guilty, but struggled significantly with drug addiction and mental health issues. Through the persistent efforts of the Andrew Glover Youth Program and a therapeutic remand, he underwent a complete transformation, completing an inpatient program, becoming drug-free, enrolling in college, and securing full-time employment. Despite the People's opposition, Judge Thomas Farber granted Brian M.'s motion to dismiss the indictment in the interests of justice. The court recognized the compelling reasons for judicial intervention, citing Brian M.'s successful rehabilitation, the non-violent nature of his crime, and the severe, lasting negative impact a felony conviction would have on his life, ensuring he could become a productive citizen.

Drug AddictionMental HealthYouthful OffenderRehabilitationIndictment DismissalInterests of JusticeCriminal Procedure LawNew YorkSentencing ReformNon-violent Crime
References
2
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

Employees Committed for Justice v. Eastman Kodak Co.

Plaintiffs Courtney Davis and Employees Committed for Justice (ECJ) brought a class-action lawsuit against Eastman Kodak Company, alleging systemic race discrimination and retaliation in employment practices, including hostile work environment, compensation, and promotions. Kodak moved to dismiss portions of the complaint, arguing against the applicability of pattern or practice theory to hostile work environment and retaliation claims, and challenging ECJ's associational standing. Kodak also sought dismissal based on employee releases and statute of limitations. The United States Magistrate Judge denied Kodak's motion to dismiss on all grounds, finding that pattern or practice claims are compatible with hostile work environment and retaliation allegations, and that ECJ possesses associational standing. The court also deferred decisions on the validity of releases and statute of limitations defenses, citing the need for further factual development.

Race DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentClass ActionPattern or PracticeRetaliationAssociational StandingMotion to DismissStatute of LimitationsTitle VII42 U.S.C. § 1981
References
59
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 2015

Jacoby & Meyers, LLP v. Presiding Justices of the First, Second, Third & Fourth Departments

This putative class action challenges New York laws prohibiting non-lawyer equity ownership in law firms, alleging violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments and the dormant Commerce Clause. The case was remanded from the Court of Appeals after an initial dismissal for lack of standing. Plaintiffs Jacoby & Meyers, LLP and Jacoby & Meyers USA II PLLC argued these laws impede their ability to raise capital and expand legal services. However, the District Court concluded that the plaintiffs' constitutional challenges were without merit. The court found that the proposed activity constituted commercial conduct, not protected speech or association, and that the state laws were rationally related to New York's legitimate interest in regulating the legal profession. Consequently, the defendants' motion to dismiss the third amended complaint was granted.

First AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentDormant Commerce ClauseLegal Profession RegulationNon-Lawyer Equity OwnershipLaw Firm FinancingConstitutional LawFreedom of SpeechFreedom of AssociationEqual Protection
References
76
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
Case No. 11 Civ. 6990, 11 Civ. 7562
Regular Panel Decision

New York Times Co. v. United States Department of Justice

The New York Times and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) brought separate Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) actions against the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). They sought the public disclosure of a classified report to Congress regarding foreign intelligence collection authorized by section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The Court, after an in camera review of the report, determined that it was properly withheld under FOIA Exemption 1 (national security) and Exemption 3 (intelligence sources and methods, National Security Act of 1947). The Court rejected arguments regarding 'secret law' and bad faith, and found that redaction was not feasible due to the inextricable intertwining of exempt and non-exempt material. Consequently, the Plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment were denied, and the Government's motions for summary judgment were granted.

FOIANational SecurityUSA PATRIOT ActSection 215Classified InformationSummary JudgmentExemption 1Exemption 3Intelligence SourcesGovernment Transparency
References
40
Showing 1-10 of 586 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