Case law

TLM Suffolk Enterprises, Inc. v. Town of Brookhaven

District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 27, 2023

P. 56(a); see Anderson v. … See Brown v. Oneida County, No. 15-CV-849, 2016 WL 4275727, at *9 (dismissing the plaintiff’s § 1988 cause of action for attorney’s fees because “attorney fees are a remedy, not a cause of action”).

Angstrohm Precision, Inc. v. Vishay Intertechnology, Inc.

567 F. Supp. 537 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 22, 1982

In Brown v. … Brown, supra at 376 . Therefore, collateral estoppel may fairly be applied to preclude the further litigation of either.

Post v. Payton

323 F. Supp. 799 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 20, 1971

Post Center, and the chairman and members of the board of trustees of the Long Island University, who are accused of concerted action in suspending the broadcast operations of the radio stations and discharging the director … Powell v. Workmen’s Compensation Board of the State of New York, 327 F.2d 131 (2d Cir. 1964). This they have failed to do.

Musto v. Transport Workers Union of America

339 F. Supp. 2d 456 · District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 27, 2004

See Ramey v. … Robinson v. Trans-world Airlines is also easily distinguishable since it involves an attempt by the plaintiff to have a federal court review a determination of the RLA-mandated Adjustment Board.

Dajbabic v. Rick's Café

995 F. Supp. 2d 210 · District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 6, 2014

Arbor Hill Concerned Citizens Neighborhood Association v. County of Albany & Albany County Board of Elections, 522 F.3d 182, 190 (2d Cir.2008) (addressing the various factors that may go into that determination). … Where the hours billed are excessive and unreasonable, the court may use its discretion to make across-the-board percentage reductions. Luciano v. Olsten Corp., 109 F.3d 111, 117 (2d Cir.1997).

Sandler v. Marconi Circuit Technology Corp.

814 F. Supp. 263 · District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 16, 1993

See Lister v. … In Smith v.

Osorio v. United States

789 F. Supp. 594 · District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 27, 1992

Petitioner appealed to the National Appeals Board of the Parole Commission. … .”); United States v.

Laka v. Columbia Pen & Pencil Co.

224 F. Supp. 741 · District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 23, 1963

On application to the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office, the three claims were allowed. Patent No. 2,907,-302 was issued to plaintiff, Laka Tool and Stamping Company, on October 6, 1959. … Is the presumption here stronger because the patent was reviewed and approved by the Board of Appeals, or weaker because it was reviewed and rejected three times by the Patent Office Examiner?

Greene v. Long Island Railroad

99 F. Supp. 2d 268 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 2, 2000

Railroad Retirement Board, Weiss Decl., Exhibit D. … Accord Felton v.

Mehrbach v. Liverpool & Great Western Steam Co.

12 F. 77 · District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 10, 1882

The evidence warrants the further finding that this bill of lading was issued after the horses had been received on board the steamer. … See Atwell v. Miller, 11 Md. 348 .

Christmas House USA Inc. v. ChristmasLand Experience LLP

District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 22, 2022

While the delay here of a little more than a month was relatively short, compare Weight Watchers Int'l, Inc. v. … Brown GARY R. BROWN United States District Judge

Milberg v. Lawrence Cedarhurst Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n

68 F.R.D. 49 · District Court, E.D. New York · May 20, 1975

Partain v. First National Bank, 59 F.R.D. 56, 59 (M.D.Ala.1973), Dolgow v. Anderson, 43 F.R.D. 472, 488 (E.D.N.Y.1968). … Cohen v. District of Columbia Nat. Bank, 50 F.R.D. 84, 90 (D.D.C.1972), Richardson v. Hamilton International Corporation, 62 F.R.D. 413, 419 (E.D.Pa. 1974).

The Ville Du Havre

28 F. Cas. 1190 · District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 15, 1874

It is- difficult to suppose that the condition of the light after the blow was not the subject of the attention of all on board the bark. … VINACKE (REEVES v.).

Old Dutch Farms, Inc. v. Milk Drivers & Dairy Employees Local Union No. 584

243 F. Supp. 246 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jul 9, 1965

. § 187 ), for damages caused by defendant’s conduct, which has been held by the National Labor Relations Board ( 146 NLRB No. 62 , 1964) and the Court of Appeals (1965, 341 F.2d 29 ) to have been a secondary boycott violative … Trades Council, etc. v.

United States v. Pokuaa

782 F. Supp. 747 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 31, 1992

There it was discovered that she had swallowed balloons containing about 92 grams of heroin prior to boarding the plane in Nigeria. … See United States v. Williams, 88 CR 144 (E.D.N.Y.1988); cf. United States v.

Maloney v. Saul

District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 24, 2020

On January 7, 2020, Judge Brown issued a Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) that the Court deny the Plaintiff’s motion as untimely. … See Coburn v. P.N. Fin., No. 13-CV-1006 (ADS) (SIL), 2015 WL 520346, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2015) (reviewing Report and Recommendation without objections for clear error).

New York State Ass'n for Retarded Children, Inc. v. Carey

551 F. Supp. 1165 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jul 13, 1982

Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 , 78 S.Ct. 1401 , 3 L.Ed.2d 5 (1958); Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294 , 75 S.Ct. 753 , 99 L.Ed. 1083 (1955); Hart v. … Chance v. Board of Examiners, 561 F.2d 1079, 1086 (2d Cir.1977).

Feuer v. Saul

District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 20, 2020

Brown for a Report and Recommendation. … .”); Pall Corp. v.

Thomas v. Office of the United States Attorney

928 F. Supp. 245 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 12, 1996

Donovan v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, 806 F.2d 55, 57-58 (2d Cir.1986); Brown v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, 658 F.2d 71, 73 (2d Cir.1981). … Brown v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, 658 F.2d 71, 74 (2d Cir.1981); 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b). 4 .

Ficano v. Dulles

151 F. Supp. 650 · District Court, E.D. New York · Dec 31, 1954

. § 1503 ) has been construed in the cases of Avina v. Brownell, D.C., 112 F.Supp. 15 ; Vasquez v. Brownell, D.C., 113 F.Supp. 722 and Correia v. Dulles, D.C.R.I., 129 F.Supp. 533 . … It appeared therein that the plaintiff, after ■denial of entry into this country by a Board of Special Inquiry, illegally entered the country.