Case law

Field Day, LLC v. County of Suffolk

799 F. Supp. 2d 186 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 28, 2011

Co. v. … One such example of this rare breed of cases is Cahn v. Town of Huntington, 29 N.Y.2d 451 , 328 N.Y.S.2d 672 , 278 N.E.2d 908 (1972). There, the Town Board, utilizing the Town Attorney, sued the Town Planning Board.

Gibbs v. T. Z. R. Amusement Corp.

14 F. Supp. 957 · District Court, E.D. New York · May 26, 1936

The circumstances áre quite at variance with those examined in the case of Radio Corporation of America v. Emerson (C.C. A.) 296 F. 51 , upon which the defendants rely. … and prevented until the play starts again on all boards, so that, for instance, if the winner is seated at board 7, a player on board 9 not only finds all lights in his annunciator extinguished as the result of the completion

Archer v. Economic Opportunity Commission of Nassau County Inc.

30 F. Supp. 2d 600 · District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 23, 1998

Plaintiffs contend that, since one third of the EOC’s Board of Directors (“Board”) is comprised of government officials, 2 and since the Board and the Board’s Personnel Committee (“Committee”) are authorized to make personnel … Downs v.

Cave v. Beame

433 F. Supp. 172 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 1, 1977

But as the Supreme Court stated in Board of Regents v. … Board of Regents v. Roth, supra, 408 U.S. at 577 , 92 S.Ct. 2701 .

Green v. United States

90 F. Supp. 2d 229 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 16, 2000

Fed.R.Crim.Pro. 41(e); see Mora v. United States, 955 F.2d 156, 158 (2d Cir.1992) (“[I]n making a determination, a trial court must rely on the evidence before it.”); United States v. … See Ruiz v. United States, 90-C-186, 1990 WL 203118 , at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Nov.23, 1990); see Gov’t of the Virgin Islands v. Edwards, 903 F.2d 267, 274 (3d Cir.1990); United States v.

Operative Plasterers' & Cement Masons' International Ass'n v. Metropolitan New York Dry Wall Contractors Ass'n

543 F. Supp. 301 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jul 7, 1982

Compare, e.g., Drake Bakeries, Inc. v. … Rochdale Village v.

Application of Crowley v. United States Merchant Marine Academy

985 F. Supp. 292 · District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 15, 1997

See Cody v. Lt. … Gabriloudtz v.

Reliable Transfer Co. v. United States

53 F.R.D. 24 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 18, 1971

Nothing to the contrary is held in Bank Line, Ltd. v. United States, 163 F.2d 133 (2d Cir. 1947), on which plaintiff relies. That case related to the findings of a Naval Board of Inquiry concerning a collision. … The libellant sought only the testimony of the witnesses who were heard by the Board of Inquiry, and not the findings or opinions of the Board.

The Strathdon

94 F. 206 · District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 29, 1899

But, as stated by Judge Brown in Heye v. … Cas. 1,085 ]; Triplet v. Van Name, 2 Cranch, C. C. 332 , Fed. Cas. No. 14,176; Heye v.

Greenport Basin & Construction Co. v. Silkworth

60 F.2d 641 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jul 14, 1932

Judge Brown quotes from The General Cass, 1 Brown’s Adm. 334, Fed. Cas. … The view expressed by Judge Hughes in United States v. The Grace Meade, Fed. Cas.

Cosenza v. United States

183 F.R.D. 72 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jul 30, 1997

Victor V. … Managers, Inc. v. IRC Holding Corp., 885 F.2d 1011, 1017 (2d Cir.1989) (quoting Browning Debenture Holders’ Comm. v. DASA Corp., 560 F.2d 1078, 1086 (2d Cir.1977)); accord United States v.

In Re Wiring Device Antitrust Litigation

498 F. Supp. 79 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 29, 1980

Three J Farms, Inc. v. Alton Box Board Co., 1979-1 Trade Cas. … In State v.

Smith v. TOWN OF HEMPSTEAD DEPT. OF SANITATION

798 F. Supp. 2d 443 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jul 19, 2011

Similarly, the plaintiffs' claims against the members of the Board of Commissioners in their official capacities are treated as identical to the plaintiffs' claims against the Sanitary District. See, e.g., Tsotesi v. … Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 , 114 S.Ct. 367 , 126 L.Ed.2d 295 (1993) (finding that the hanging of a noose twice in the plaintiff's work station created a triable issue of fact concerning harassment); Brown v.

MacPherson v. Town of Southampton

738 F. Supp. 2d 353 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 7, 2010

Defendants argue that Count V, which alleges a violation of Plaintiffs’ Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights based upon the Town and Town Board’s “deliberate! ] and intentional! … The Court finds, however, that, while somewhat repetitive of the allegations made in the Initial Action, Count V also alleges different civil rights violations stemming from the Town and Town Board’s failure to adequately

Weiss v. Anker

421 F. Supp. 1040 · District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 5, 1976

The starting point for analysis is Board of Regents v. … Indeed, under the teachings of Board of Regents v.

Arnold v. Rumsfeld

418 F. Supp. 146 · District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 3, 1976

See also Gilligan v. Morgan, 413 U.S. 1 , 93 S.Ct. 2440 , 37 L.Ed.2d 407 (1973). Addressing itself specifically to the hardship exemptions, the Second Circuit stated in Roth v. … Sofranko v. Froehlke, 346 F.Supp. 1380 (W.D.Tex.1972); Turner v. Commander, United States Army Reserve, 416 F.Supp. 1116 (N.D.Ohio, 1976).

Yassky v. Kings County Democratic County Committee

259 F. Supp. 2d 210 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 25, 2003

Lerman v. Board of Elections In Lerman v. … Mootness As the Supreme Court recently stated in Buckkannon Board and Care Home, Inc. v.

Myers v. Pension Fund, Local One Amalgamated Lithographers of America

704 F. Supp. 343 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 27, 1989

See United States v. Hutcheson, 312 U.S. 219, 232 , 61 S.Ct. 463, 466 , 85 L.Ed. 788 (1941); Tuvia Convalescent Center, Inc. v. … Miles v. New York State Teamsters Conference Pension Plan, supra.; Wardle v. Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund, 627 F.2d 820 (7th Cir.1980).

Meding v. Receptopharm, Inc.

462 F. Supp. 2d 348 · District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 13, 2006

See also Brown v. Webster, fn.1 supra (so-called interest claim was a “principal demand” rather than an “accessory demand”); Bailey Employment System, Inc. v. … Judge Trager noted that these authorities had distinguished an earlier Supreme Court case, Brown v.

Strip Clean Floor Refinishing v. New York District Council No. 9 Brotherhood of Painters

333 F. Supp. 385 · District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 9, 1971

Robertson & Associates, Inc. v. … Reading Utah Construction with United States v.