 |
| |
These decisions are listed here only because they are available online.
SUPREME COURT CASES
RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD v.
ALTON R. CO., 295 U.S. 330 (1935)
THE FAMOUS SUPREME COURT CASE. THE RESPONDENTS, COMPRISING 134 CLASS I RAILROADS, TWO EXPRESS COMPANIES, AND THE PULLMAN COMPANY, BROUGHT THIS SUIT IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ASSERTING THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE RAILROAD RETIREMENT ACT1 AND PRAYING AN INJUNCTION AGAINST ITS ENFORCEMENT.
CALIFORNIA V. LATIMER, 305
U.S. 255 NO. 13, ORIGINAL. ARGUED NOVEMBER 7, 1938. - DECIDED DECEMBER 5,
1938. - BILL DISMISSED.
A BILL FILED HERE BY CALIFORNIA AGAINST THE MEMBERS OF THE RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD AND THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, TO ENJOIN THEM FROM ENFORCING AGAINST THE STATE BELT RAILROAD - A RAILROAD ON THE SAN FRANCISCO WATERFRONT, OWNED BY THE STATE, AND OPERATED BY IT INTERSTATE COMMERCE - THE PROVISIONS OF THE RAILROAD RETIREMENT ACTS OF 1935 AND 1937 AND OF THE CARRIERS TAXING ACT OF 1937, HELD WITHOUT EQUITY.
RAILROAD BOARD V. DUQUESNE CO.,
326 U.S. 446 ARGUED
NOVEMBER 14, 1945. - DECIDED JANUARY 2, 1946. - 148 F.2D 473, REVERSED - 149
F.2D 507, AFFIRMED.
WHERE A WAREHOUSE COMPANY WHOLLY OWNED BY A RAILROAD COMPANY LOADS AND UNLOADS GOODS SHIPPED ON THE RAILROAD, IT PERFORMS SERVICES "IN CONNECTION WITH THE TRANSPORTATION OF ... PROPERTY BY RAILROAD"; IT IS AN "EMPLOYER" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 1(A) OF THE RAILROAD RETIREMENT ACT OF 1937 AND SEC. 1(A) OF THE RAILROAD UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT OF 1938; AND ITS EMPLOYEES ARE ENTITLED TO THE BENEFITS OF THOSE ACTS, EVEN THOUGH THE SERVICES ARE RENDERED TO, AND PAID FOR BY, THE SHIPPERS.
HISQUIERDO v. HISQUIERDO, 439 U.S. 572 (1979)
No. 77-533. Argued November 1, 1978 Decided January 22, 1979
PETITIONER, A CALIFORNIA RESIDENT WHOSE YEARS OF SERVICE AS A RAILROAD EMPLOYEE ENTITLED HIM TO BENEFITS UNDER THE ACT IF AND WHEN HE ATTAINED AGE 60, PETITIONED FOR DISSOLUTION OF HIS MARRIAGE TO RESPONDENT, ALSO A RESIDENT OF CALIFORNIA, WHICH HAS A COMMUNITY PROPERTY LAW. THE TRIAL COURT DIVIDED THE PARTIES' COMMUNITY PROPERTY BUT HELD THAT RESPONDENT HAD NO INTEREST IN PETITIONER'S EXPECTATION OF RECEIVING RAILROAD RETIREMENT BENEFITS.
U.S. RAILROAD RETIREMENT BD. v. FRITZ, 449 U.S. 166 (1980)
U.S. SUPREME COURT: APPELLEE AND OTHERS FILED A CLASS ACTION IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT 231B (H) IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, CONTENDING THAT IT WAS IRRATIONAL FOR CONGRESS TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN EMPLOYEES WHO HAD MORE THAN 10 YEARS BUT LESS THAN 25 YEARS OF RAILROAD EMPLOYMENT SIMPLY ON THE BASIS OF WHETHER THEY HAD A "CURRENT CONNECTION" WITH THE RAILROAD INDUSTRY AS OF THE CHANGEOVER DATE OR AS OF THE DATE OF RETIREMENT.
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
No.
93-1621 Argued December 9, 1994 Decided March 24, 1995
CHENEY RAILROAD COMPANY, INC., PETITIONER v. RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD, Respondent And consolidated case No. 93-1636 TYSON RAILROAD, INC., PETITIONER v. RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD, RESPONDENT
THE ISSUE IN THESE APPEALS IS WHETHER FEEDER RAILROADS THAT ARE EXEMPT FROM MOST OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT REMAIN SUBJECT TO THE RAILROAD RETIREMENT ACT ("RRA") AND THE RAILROAD UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT ("RUIA"). TWO FEEDER RAILROADS, PETITIONERS CHENEY RAILROAD COMPANY, INC. AND TYSON RAILROAD, INC., CHALLENGE THE DECISION OF THE RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD THAT THEY WERE "EMPLOYERS" UNDER THE RRA AND THE RUIA AND THEREFORE SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THOSE TWO STATUTES. PETITIONERS MAINTAIN THAT THE TERM "EMPLOYER" AS USED IN THE RAILROAD EMPLOYEE BENEFIT STATUTES IS LIMITED TO ENTITIES SUBJECT TO A PORTION OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT FROM WHICH THEY HAVE PROPERLY EXEMPTED THEMSELVES. BECAUSE THE LANGUAGE AND HISTORY OF THE RRA AND THE RUIA DEMONSTRATE THAT FEEDER RAILROADS ARE "EMPLOYERS" UNDER THESE STATUTES, WE DENY THE PETITIONS FOR REVIEW.
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
No. 95-1313 Argued March 18, 1996 Decided May 17, 1996
Interstate Quality Services, Inc., Petitioner v. Railroad Retirement Board, Respondent
IN A DECISION DATED MARCH 16, 1993, THE RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD (BOARD) RULED THAT RELOADS IS AN "EMPLOYER" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE RAILROAD RETIREMENT ACT, 45 U.S.C. § 231(A)(1)(II), (RRA) AND THE RAILROAD UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT, 45 U.S.C. § 351(A), (RUIA). RELOADS HAS PETITIONED FOR REVIEW OF THAT DECISION. FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS WE DENY THE PETITION.
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
No. 97-1610 Argued May 12, 1998 Decided June 9, 1998
Stuart M. Reed, Petitioner v. Railroad Retirement Board, Respondent
PER CURIAM: FORMER CONRAIL PRESIDENT STUART M. REED PETITIONS FOR REVIEW OF A DECISION BY THE RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD DECLARING HIM INELIGIBLE FOR RAILROAD RETIREMENT BENEFITS. WE DENY THE PETITION BECAUSE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTS THE BOARD'S DETERMINATION THAT REED TERMINATED HIS EMPLOYMENT WITH CONRAIL MORE THAN A YEAR SHORT OF THE TEN YEARS NECESSARY TO QUALIFY FOR SUCH BENEFITS.
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit
No. 95-1762
ARGUED DECEMBER 4, 1995--DECIDED JANUARY 25, 1996
LAWRENCE R. WASSENBERG, Petitioner-Appellant, v. THE UNITED STATES RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD, Respondent-Appellee.
IN 1991, WHEN HE WAS IN HIS MID-THIRTIES, LAWRENCE WASSENBERG WAS FOUND TO BE THE DISABLED "CHILD" OF AN INSURED WORKER UNDER THE RAILROAD RETIREMENT ACT. BASED ON THE FINDING, WASSENBERG WAS AWARDED AN ANNUITY, RETROACTIVE TO DECEMBER 1, 1989. ALTHOUGH WASSENBERG IS GLAD HE WON AN AWARD, HE IS UNHAPPY WITH THE RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD'S ORDER NOT TO MAKE IT RETROACTIVE TO EITHER 1975 OR 1977.
In
the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit
No. 96-3161 ARGUED FEBRUARY 11, 1997--DECIDED MARCH 24, 1997
LENILL L. THORNTON, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD, Respondent.
LENILL THORNTON PETITIONS FOR REVIEW OF THE AFFIRMANCE BY THE UNITED STATES RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD ("THE BOARD") OF ITS HEARING OFFICER'S DECISION DENYING HIS APPLICATION FOR A DISABILITY ANNUITY UNDER THE RAILROAD RETIREMENT ACT ("THE ACT").1 PETITIONER ARGUES THAT THE BOARD ERRED BY AFFIRMING THE HEARING OFFICER'S DECISION DENYING HIS DISABILITY ANNUITY APPLICATION WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF AN ORAL HEARING. WE AFFIRM.
In
the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit
96-3577 Argued April 10, 1997--Decided October 2, 1997
United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronald J. Colt, Defendant-Appellant.
AFTER BEING CHARGED BY AN INFORMATION, RONALD COLT PLEADED GUILTY TO THE MISDEMEANOR OFFENSE OF SUBMITTING FALSE UNEMPLOYMENT CLAIMS WITH THE UNITED STATES RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD, IN VIOLATION OF 45 U.S.C. SEC. 359(A). COLT WAS SENTENCED TO SEVEN MONTHS IN PRISON AND ONE YEAR OF SUPERVISED RELEASE.
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
No. 96-1911
William A. Pemberton, Petitioner, v. Railroad Retirement Board, Respondent.
WILLIAM PEMBERTON APPEALS THE DECISION OF THE RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD DENYING HIS APPLICATION FOR A DISABILITY ANNUITY UNDER THE RAILROAD RETIREMENT ACT. BECAUSE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ON THE RECORD AS A WHOLE SUPPORTS THE BOARD'S DECISION, WE AFFIRM.
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
No. 95-3028 Submitted: January 12, 1996 Filed: May 30, 1996
Charles E. Fountain, Petitioner, v. Railroad Retirement Board, Respondent.
CHARLES FOUNTAIN APPEALS THE RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD'S DENIAL OF HIS APPLICATION FOR A DISABILITY ANNUITY UNDER THE RAILROAD RETIREMENT ACT. HE ASSERTS THAT THE BOARD'S DECISION IS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. WE AFFIRM.
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
No. 95-1981
Rick L. Norton, Petitioner, v. Railroad Retirement Board, Respondent
RICK L. NORTON, A FORMER EMPLOYEE OF THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD, WAS INJURED ON THE JOB IN 1990. NORTON RECEIVED A CASH SETTLEMENT FROM BURLINGTON AND APPLIED TO THE RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD FOR AN OCCUPATIONAL DISABILITY ANNUITY. BECAUSE OF GAPS IN NORTON'S EMPLOYMENT WITH BURLINGTON DURING THE 1970S AND 1980S, A HEARING OFFICER DECIDED NORTON DID NOT HAVE THE REQUIRED TWENTY YEARS OF SERVICE AND DENIED NORTON'S APPLICATION. SEE 45 U.S.C. SS 231A(A)(1)(IV)(A) (1988). THE BOARD ADOPTED AND AFFIRMED THE HEARING OFFICER'S DECISION. WE DENY NORTON'S PETITION FOR REVIEW.
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
No. 97-3034
United States of America, Appellant, v. Roger D. Workman, Appellee.
ROGER WORKMAN WAS CHARGED WITH NUMEROUS COUNTS OF CONVERTING GOVERNMENT PROPERTY IN VIOLATION OF 18 U.S.C. § 641, FOR DIVERTING THE PROCEEDS OF RAILROAD RETIREMENT BENEFIT CHECKS ISSUED IN HIS FATHER'S NAME. THE CASE IS NOW BEFORE THE COURT ON AN INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL BROUGHT BY THE GOVERNMENT TO CHALLENGE CERTAIN EVIDENTIARY RULINGS OF THE DISTRICT COURT IN ADVANCE OF ROGER WORKMAN'S SECOND TRIAL ON THE CHARGES. WE REVERSE AND REMAND.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Nos. 88-15024, 88-15279.
VELMA MARTIN, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. LOUIS J. SULLIVAN, SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
AS THE WIDOW OF A FORMER RAILROAD EMPLOYEE, MRS. VELMA MARTIN (MARTIN) BECAME ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE MONTHLY SURVIVOR'S BENEFITS FROM THE RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD (BOARD) BEGINNING IN DECEMBER 1978. IN MAY 1985, THE BOARD NOTIFIED MARTIN THAT SHE HAD BEEN OVERPAID DURING THE FIRST FOUR YEARS IN THE AMOUNT OF $8,528.92 BECAUSE SHE HAD NEGLECTED TO REPORT ADDITIONAL INCOME. TO RECOVER THE AMOUNT OWING, THE BOARD INFORMED MARTIN THAT HER ENTIRE MONTHLY BENEFIT OF $268.16 WOULD BE SUSPENDED FOR A PERIOD OF 34 MONTHS. MARTIN PETITIONED THE BOARD FOR A WAIVER OF THE RECOVERY. HER REQUEST WAS DENIED, HOWEVER, BECAUSE SHE WAS DEEMED TO BE AT FAULT IN CAUSING THE OVERPAYMENT.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
No. 89-70193 Argued June 7, 1990. Decided January 24, 1991
LOUIE J. CAPOVILLA, PETITIONER, v. RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD, RESPONDENT.
CAPOVILLA'S PAY FOR TIME LOST BECAUSE OF PERSONAL INJURY WAS CREDITED TO THE PERIOD ENDING JULY 31, 1991. UNTIL THAT PERIOD EXPIRES, REGULATION 218.19, IF VALID, EFFECTIVELY BLOCKS HIS CLAIM FOR AN ANNUITY UNDER 45 U.S.C. 231A(A)(1)(V). WE NOW TURN TO THE VALIDITY OF THAT REGULATION.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
No. 94-36202
MONTANA RAIL LINK, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee.
MONTANA RAIL LINK ("MRL") APPEALS THE DISTRICT COURT'S DISMISSAL OF ITS ACTION TO OBTAIN A REFUND OF TAXES PAID IN 1987 AND 1988. MRL ASSERTS THAT S 10206(C)(2)(A)(II) OF THE OMNIBUS BUDGET RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1989 ("OBRA") VIOLATES DUE PROCESS BY RETROACTIVELY BARRING REFUND CLAIMS BY EMPLOYERS WHO BELIEVED THAT THEIR 401(K) PLAN CONTRIBUTIONS WERE SUBJECT TO TAX UNDER THE RAILROAD RETIREMENT TAX ACT ("RRTA"). 1 WE AFFIRM THE COURT'S JUDGMENT, ON THE GROUNDS THAT S 10206(C)(2)(A)(II) IS SUPPORTED BY A LEGITIMATE LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE FURTHERED BY RATIONAL MEANS. SEE UNITED STATES V. CARLTON, 114 S.CT. 2018, 2022, 2024 (1994).
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT.
No. 97-9501
RONALD M. RUSSELL, Petitioner, v. RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD, Respondent.
PLAINTIFF FILED AN APPLICATION FOR DISABILITY ANNUITY WITH THE RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD (BOARD), ALLEGING DISABILITY SINCE OCTOBER 15, 1992. A HEARING OFFICER FOUND THAT PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO AN OCCUPATIONAL DISABILITY, BECAUSE HE COULD NOT PERFORM HIS REGULAR RAILROAD OCCUPATION, BUT DEFERRED A DECISION ON THE APPLICATION FOR A PERIOD OF DISABILITY UNDER THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT AND CONSEQUENT QUALIFICATION FOR EARLY MEDICARE COVERAGE, PENDING PLAINTIFF'S DECISION AS TO WHETHER HE WOULD APPEAL THE DENIAL OF A PERIOD OF DISABILITY. PLAINTIFF DID APPEAL, AND A HEARING OFFICER FOUND THAT PLAINTIFF COULD PERFORM UNSKILLED LIGHT WORK AVAILABLE IN THE NATIONAL ECONOMY AND, THEREFORE, THAT HE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A PERIOD OF DISABILITY AND EARLY MEDICARE COVERAGE. PLAINTIFF APPEALED THAT DECISION TO THE BOARD, AND IT AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED THE DECISION OF THE HEARING OFFICER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOR A PERIOD OF DISABILITY UNDER THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT No.
98-8066
MICHAEL R. SCHAEFER,Plaintiff- Appellant, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, a Utah corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
MR. SCHAEFER THEN FILED THIS ACTION PURSUIT TO THE FEDERAL EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY ACT, 45 U.S.C. §§ 51-60 (FELA), ALLEGING NEGLIGENCE BY DEFENDANT BECAUSE IT HAD PROVIDED UNSAFE WORKING CONDITIONS.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-9502
BERTHA L. MATLOCK, Petitioner, v. RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD, Respondent
PETITIONER BERTHA L. MATLOCK SEEKS REVIEW OF THE FINAL DECISION OF THE RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD (BOARD) DENYING HER APPLICATION FOR DISABLED WIDOW'S BENEFITS. BECAUSE THE BOARD'S DECISION IS SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND IS LEGALLY CORRECT, WE AFFIRM.
ARIZONA INDIVIDUAL TAX RULING
ITR 96-1
ISSUE: ARE RAILROAD RETIREMENT BENEFITS TAXABLE BY ARIZONA?
|
Before sending e-mail, you must review our e-mail notice! |
|
|
| Page last updated June 14, 2004 |
