42 U.S.C. § 1654
Persons excluded from benefits
This chapter shall not apply in respect to the injury or death of (1) an employee subject to the provisions of subchapter I of chapter 81 of title 5; (2) an employee engaged in agriculture, domestic service, or any employment that is casual and not in the usual course of the trade, business, or profession of the employer; and (3) a master or member of a crew of any vessel.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1957–2025 · leading case: Grimes v. Raymond Concrete Pile Co. Et Al., 356 U.S. 252 (1958).
Grimes v. Raymond Concrete Pile Co. Et Al., 356 U.S. 252 (1958). “We hold, in agreement with the Court of Appeals, that 42 U. S. C. § 1654 saves the remedy under the Jones Act created for a member of a crew of any vessel.”
In Re United States Air Force Texas Tower No. 4, 203 F. Supp. 215 (S.D.N.Y. 1962). “The Supreme Court in Grimes held: “We hold, in agreement with the Court of Appeals, that 42 U.S.C. § 1654 , 42 U.S.C.A. § 1654 , saves the remedy under the Jones Act, created for a member of a crew of any vessel.”
Leonard L. Grimes v. Raymond Concrete Pile Co., 245 F.2d 437 (1st Cir. 1957). “, to any employee who is injured while employed outside the continental United States under a public work contract or while doing work which is preparatory and ancillary thereto, provided he does not fall within the exceptions set forth in 42 U.S.CA. § 1654. In the instant case…”
Flying Tiger Lines, Inc. v. Landy, 370 F.2d 46 (9th Cir. 1966). “The legislative history reenforces this conclusion. Next, appellants contend that, regardless of the applicability of section 1651(a) (4), the award was erroneously contrary to 42 U.”
Flying Tiger Lines, Inc. v. Landy, 250 F. Supp. 282 (N.D. Cal. 1965). “Second, was the decedent’s death specifically excluded from the provisions of the Defense Base Act? No.”
Brannan v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 91 N.W.2d 166 (Minn. 1958). “[2d] 737, 739): “We hold, in agreement with the Court of Appeals, that 42 U. S. C. § 1654 saves the remedy under the Jones Act created for a member of a crew of any vessel.”
Oliver v. Ocean Drilling & Expl. Co., 222 F. Supp. 843 (W.D. La. 1963). “§§ 1651-1654 , which incorporates the remedies of the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Act in language identical to that used for this purpose in the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, quoted above, the Supreme Court says: “We hold, in agreement with the Court of Appeals, that…”
Boyles v. Humble Oil & Refining Co., 209 F. Supp. 857 (E.D. La. 1962). “2d 737 (1958), that the Defense Bases Act, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1654 , which incorporates the remedies of the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, saves the remedy under the Jones Act created for a member of a crew of any vessel.”
Bielicki v. Doepker (E.D. Mich. 2025). “2009) (“The fact that a minor or incompetent person must be represented by a next friend, guardian ad litem, or other fiduciary does not alter the principle embodied in 42 U.S.C. § 1654 that a non- attorney is not allowed to represent another individual in federal court…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.