|
|
|
|
Miscellaneous Legal Decisions |
Supreme Court Cases |
All links below go to web sites outside of rrb.gov and other federal government sites.
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 submitted: November 21, 1996 filed: March 7, 1997
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.
|
| |