Case law

Eugene B. v. Great Neck Union Free School District

635 F. Supp. 753 · District Court, E.D. New York · May 28, 1986

Accordingly, the District placed Gene in a special education program in which specially qualified instructors using specially developed materials taught small groups of children apart from the mainstream of students. … Observing that the EAHCA clearly authorizes prospective injunctive relief, Justice Rehnquist reasoned that unless judicial review were to be completed in a matter of weeks, such relief would be insufficient to supply the

Ringel

District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 11, 2026

On the same day, Mendelsohn was appointed the interim Chapter 7 Trustee and thereafter duly qualified as the permanent case Trustee.2 Bankr. DE 1. … “One element of the case-or-controversy requirement is that plaintiffs must establish that they have standing to sue.” Clapper v.

United States v. Georgescu

723 F. Supp. 912 · District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 25, 1989

He stated: “[T]here may be some cases of foreign-flag flights that are not clearly covered by the above definition of ‘air commerce’ where we would want to assert jurisdiction.” … There is nothing in the legislative history to indicate that Congress meant to qualify the broad jurisdiction over crimes aboard foreign aircraft that it conferred in the 1961 and 1970 criminal provisions.

Salute v. Greens

918 F. Supp. 660 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 21, 1996

. § 3601 , et seq., *662 and the requirements of the “Section 8” housing program established by United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended by The Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (codified as amended at 42 … Certificate holders, who sometimes wait years before receiving the certificate, have a limited amount of time to locate and lease a qualifying apartment.

Claiborne v. Winthrop University Hospital

District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 28, 2020

Claiborne clearly misunderstood this Court’s Order on Winthrop’s motion to dismiss. … Claiborne is advised, “to state a prima facie case of FMLA retaliation, the plaintiff must show that (1) [s]he exercised rights protected under the FMLA; (2) [s]he was qualified for his position; (3) [s]he suffered an adverse

1-21 v. County of Suffolk

138 F. Supp. 3d 264 · District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 14, 2015

’ claims and whether the unnamed Plaintiffs will qualify as adequate representatives of the proposed class action. … The Plaintiffs are correct that generally “the person seeking a stay ‘bears the burden of establishing its need.’” Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A.,. 676 F.3d-at 97 (quoting Clinton v.

ExteNet Systems, Inc. v. Village of Plandome

District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 29, 2021

This letter clearly indicated that plaintiff understood the replacement poles to qualify as “co-locations” of existing poles – an understanding that the Board and its representatives failed to dispute. … Significantly, plaintiff clearly established on multiple occasions that it did not construct macro cells and was not in the business of doing so. See, e.g., AR 1098, 1151-52.

United States v. C.R.

792 F. Supp. 2d 343 · District Court, E.D. New York · May 16, 2011

I mean, that clearly would qualify him for a coding of I on that item. *457 Q So, when you say, “The only other,” that’s the only other on the whole list you would have given him points out of the ten? … Clearly, all of those children in the child pornography are, in their own ways, victims. The question is whether they qualify as a victim for the Static-99.

Chen v. Warden of Greenhaven Correctional Facility

District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 4, 2022

In the “context” of the AEDPA, “‘clearly established law’ signifies ‘the holdings, as opposed to the dicta, of [the Supreme] Court’s decisions.’” Howes v. … As the 440 court stated, “a review of the record clearly establishes that trial counsel[] provided meaningful representation.” (440 D&O 8.)

Spence v. Superintendent

987 F. Supp. 151 · District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 18, 1997

Spence concedes that these facts established probable cause to support his arrest. See Miloslavsky v. … Parks, 494 U.S. at 494-95, 110 S.Ct. at 1263-64 , petitioner’s case would still not qualify.

Faith v. Khosrowshahi

District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 16, 2023

Here, as in Peng, the record establishes that Plaintiff assented to the 2020 Agreement. … Even if Plaintiff had challenged the delegation clause specifically, its language clearly and unmistakably delegates issues of arbitrability to the arbitrator.

Olson v. Wing

281 F. Supp. 2d 476 · District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 14, 2003

The second, related exception is generally applied to classes already-certified under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23(b), when a claim is deemed moot as to the named plaintiff, but clearly persists as to remaining … In any event, as will be seen, plaintiff has established a substantial likelihood of success on the merits in this case. 1.

Sanders v. Gardner

7 F. Supp. 2d 151 · District Court, E.D. New York · May 15, 1998

Only where the error is “obvious and capable of being readily and instantly perceived by the average person qualified to serve as an arbitrator ... … [was] well defined, explicit, and clearly applicable to the case.” Id. (internal citations omitted).

London v. Nassau County Correctional Facility

District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 5, 2022

Henig and Sheriff Dzurenda exposed themselves to the same conditions of which he now complains, he has not established their deliberate indifference. See Morgan v. … Any Amended Complaint shall be clearly labeled “Amended Complaint,” shall bear the same docket number as this Memorandum and Order, 20-CV-1991(JS)(SIL), and shall be filed within thirty (30) days

McRae v. Mathews

421 F. Supp. 533 · District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 22, 1976

The part of the Conference Report on the bill dealing with Section 209 is quoted as saying (inter alia) It is not our intent to preclude payments for abortions when the life of the woman is clearly endangered ... if the pregnancy … The Commissioner’s Administrative Letter 76 ADM-92 of September 3, 1976, directed local Social Service Commissioners to allow claims for legal abortions performed for Medicaid eligibles by qualified providers, and that .

NYC Medical Practice, P.C. v. Shokrian

District Court, E.D. New York · Aug 25, 2020

Whether an individual qualifies as a “journalist” for the purpose of invoking the privilege is determined based on intent and activity. … In this case, I find that Richardson’s briefing clearly suggests an argument that she should be considered a journalist eligible to invoke some form of the journalist’s privilege.

RVC Floor Decor, Ltd. v. Floor & Decor Holdings, Inc.

District Court, E.D. New York · Apr 7, 2023

On a motion in limine evidence should be excluded, “[o]nly when [it] is ‘clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds.’” United States v. … “An unregistered mark merits protection under the Lanham Act if it ‘would qualify for registration as a trademark.’” RVC Floor Decor, 527 F.

Houston v. Cotter

7 F. Supp. 3d 283 · District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 27, 2014

Even assuming arguendo that the confinement initially was a “justified suicide watch,” Nwaokocha, 369 F.Supp.2d at 373, nothing in the record clearly establishes that the time on suicide watch after January 16 was “justified … The absence of any documentary evidence, standing alone, cannot establish plaintiffs case beyond question.

Lopez v. Miller

915 F. Supp. 2d 373 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 16, 2013

For these reasons, the court finds that although Cafield’s letter does not clearly establish what actually occurred on the night of the shooting, it reliably supports the limited proposition that Chapman gave a different … Lopez does not argue that his own testimony at the evidentiary hearing qualifies as "new reliable evidence,” and the court assumes that it does not.

Rahman v. Wolf

District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 24, 2022

aside agency action, findings, and conclusions” that it finds to be “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law” or “contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity … Where “a common-law principle is well established, as are the rules of preclusion, the courts may take it as given that Congress has legislated with an expectation that the principle will apply except when a statutory purpose