Case law

Hudson v. Gioe

District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 26, 2024

The determination of whether an applicant qualifies for IFP status is within the discretion of the district court. DiGianni v. Pearson Educ., 10-CV-0206, 2010 WL 1741373, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. … Similarly, the IFP statute requires a court 4 state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or (iii) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune

Scovill Manufacturing Co. v. Roto Broil Corp. of America

304 F. Supp. 834 · District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 26, 1969

The burden of establishing invalidity of a patent shall rest on a party asserting it. … In the light of all the foregoing, the plaintiff’s claim of originality for its design patent has not been established. (Title 35 U.S.C. § 171 ).

Beth Jacob Hebrew Teachers College v. Riley

73 F. Supp. 2d 262 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 30, 1999

Beth Jacob was qualified to forego the normal “approval process” for new programs. … However, the regulations clearly provide that eligible institutions may commence new programs without “approval” from the Secretary of the DOE. Even if Dr.

Grumman Corp. v. LTV Corp.

533 F. Supp. 1385 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 18, 1982

That presumption of course must be qualified in the instant case because the language utilized in the two statutes, although similar, is not identical. … A literal reading of the statute clearly permits the recovery of attorney’s fees to all substantially prevailing plaintiffs.

Dubose

District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 17, 2025

An action is “frivolous” when either: (1) “the factual contentions are clearly baseless, such as when allegations are the product of delusion or fantasy; or (2) the claim is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory … To establish personal involvement, a plaintiff must plead that “each Government-official defendant, through the official's own individual actions, has violated the Constitution.” Tangreti v.

Wurtzel v. Starbucks Coffee Co.

257 F. Supp. 2d 520 · District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 11, 2003

Under Rule 104(a), the Court must preliminary determine whether the proposed expert is qualified and whether his testimony is relevant. Fed.R.Evid. Rule 104(a). … While circumstantial evidence may be sufficient to establish negligence in some cases, the evidence in the present action is not.

Drummond v. IPC International, Inc.

400 F. Supp. 2d 521 · District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 18, 2005

For purposes of this motion, Defendants do not dispute that Plaintiff has established the first three elements of his prima facie case, viz. that he was a member of a protected class, that he was qualified, and that he suffered … Robertson were clearly not similarly situated to Plaintiff as Simon never demanded that they not be permitted to work at Simon malls.

Hicks v. Bellnier

43 F. Supp. 3d 214 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 9, 2014

established federal law. … This decision and the Second Department’s subsequent affir-mance were neither contrary to nor unreasonable applications of clearly established federal law.

Leka v. Portuondo

76 F. Supp. 2d 258 · District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 30, 1999

The state appeals court decision rejecting petitioner’s claim, therefore, was neither contrary to, nor did it involve an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. … established Federal law ....,’” because “when a state court does not articulate the rationale for its determination, a review of that court’s ‘application’ of clearly established federal law is not possible.”); Wright v.

United States v. Rodrigues

68 F. Supp. 2d 178 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 28, 1999

Agent Quintana testified that Rodrigues *181 “clearly said he understood [the warnings] and [that] he would be willing to speak with us.” Id. … Indeed, in 1995, Great Britain expanded its long-established practice of allowing judges to comment on a defendant’s silence.

Brown v. Greiner

258 F. Supp. 2d 68 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 27, 2003

I find that the Appellate Division’s ruling was contrary to the rule that was clearly established by Apprendi . … The state courts’ rejection of the Apprendi claim in this case was contrary to clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court in Ap-prendi.

Fasano v. Flour City Architectural Metals, Inc.

945 F. Supp. 512 · District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 22, 1996

Fasano was qualified to be an estimator at the time of his discharge. Defendants’ Brief at p. 8. Immediately prior to Mr. … Clearly he has done so. At sixty years of age at the time of his discharge, Mr.

Silber v. Barbara's Bakery, Inc.

950 F. Supp. 2d 432 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 14, 2013

Accordingly, Plaintiffs do not qualify for the limited exception to the general rule that delay destroys a presumption of irreparable harm. … Nevertheless, the Court observes that the balance of hardships clearly does not favor Plaintiffs in this case.

Overstock Book Company v. Barry

305 F. Supp. 842 · District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 31, 1969

“To redress the deprivation, under col- or of any state law, [or] statute * * of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States * * The organic law which authorizes the institution of a … Here, too, the alleged conduct complained of by the State is “hardcore” and clearly within the statute no matter how limited its construction. Id. 380 U. S. at 491-492, 85 S.Ct. 1116 .

Cullinan v. Cemtrex, Inc.

287 F. Supp. 3d 277 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 9, 2018

Although the PSLRA clearly allows a group of class members to join together for selection as lead plaintiff, Nelson correctly notes that courts have been resistant to appointing lead plaintiff groups that appear to lack a … Consequently, they appear to be equally qualified to serve as lead plaintiffs on the basis of their representations to the Court ...." 12 2017 WL 6403513 , at *4.

In Re Tamoxifen Citrate Antitrust Litigation

222 F. Supp. 2d 326 · District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 26, 2002

Legal Standard for Remand A state court action may be removed to federal court “if it qualifies as a ‘dril action ... of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction ....’” Rivet v. … Agreement was entered into by Barr to avoid an unfavorable outcome on appeal. 5 While the owner of a valid patent does not have carte blanche to engage in any conduct it wishes and cannot assume that its patent will always immunize

Auwarter v. Donohue Paper Sales Corp. Defined Benefit Pension Plan

802 F. Supp. 830 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 30, 1992

Clearly, no other Plan member was eligible for or sought a lump sum benefit under the terms of the Plan. … Ultimately, the cited regulations and Plan provisions apply only if the Plan is terminated within the first ten years after its establishment.

Greenfield v. Suzuki Motor Co. Ltd.

776 F. Supp. 698 · District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 29, 1991

For any of these acts to qualify as superseding causes they would have to be unforeseeable in the normal course of events, or independent or far removed from defendants’ conduct. … See, Derdiarian, 434 N.Y.S.2d at 169-70 , 414 N.E.2d at 670-71 (noting that what is foreseeable for purposes of establishing intervening cause is generally a question for the finder of fact).

Friedman v. Maspeth Federal Loan & Savings Ass'n

30 F. Supp. 3d 183 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jul 14, 2014

Under RESPA, this letter constituted a qualified written request (QWR), obligating defendant to respond. See 12 C.F.R. § 1024.35 . … Plaintiff sufficiently alleges that he, his daughter, and his son-in-law intended to share resources as a family without establishing a tenancy. 2.

Judge Rotenberg Educational Center Inc. v. Blass

882 F. Supp. 2d 371 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 25, 2012

Here, the Plaintiff does not clearly articulate any one theory for recovery, but conflates several equitable doctrines. … The Second Circuit explained that under the emergency assistance doctrine, something less than an absolute duty will qualify.