Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
4,748 results
1.49s
District Court, E.D. New York · Oct 19, 2020
established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.’” … Even if the court were to consider the FOIL Response newly discovered evidence, a constitutional violation must have occurred to qualify for habeas relief.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. New York · May 5, 2021
“Significantly, ‘[a]n evidentiary hearing is not required when the relevant facts either are not in dispute or have been clearly demonstrated at prior stages of the case . . . or when the disputed facts are amenable to … Regardless, 3M has also submitted evidence that CovCare supplied a customer with a fake “3M acknowledgement agreement” stating that CovCare qualified as “an authorized agent to procure product for the company.”
Cited 0 timesUnknown108 F. Supp. 3d 59 · District Court, E.D. New York · Jun 8, 2015
Nasiatka also requested that approval of examination of any of the aforementioned records be conducted by a qualified com-putér evidence recovery, specialist. (Id. at ¶ 66.) … For example, the FDA could not say that it is lawful to sell heroin in Puerto Rico because that is a statutory crime clearly defined.
Cited 8 timesPublishedLM Insurance Corporation v. Safety National Casualty Corporation
District Court, E.D. New York · Mar 24, 2025
found that third-party claims and cross claims similar to those at issue here are an ‘essential component’ of the underlying defense and, as a result, costs associated with those claims qualify … Cincinnati’s conclusory argument that the billing records Safety National submitted in support of its motion clearly “demonstrate that there was a joint counsel plan” between attorneys performing
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. New York · Apr 12, 2023
Moreover, the conclusion of the message clearly refers to Petitioner’s efforts at control and coercion. 17 U.S. … Much of the experts’ testimony was irrelevant or inadmissible, including because it contained hearsay relating to factual matters or concerned topics about which the expert was not qualified
Cited 0 timesUnknownBuilding Industry Electrical Contractors Association v. Tek
District Court, E.D. New York · Jan 2, 2024
The word “between” in Section 301(a) qualifies the word “con- tracts” and not “suits.” See Smith v. Evening News Ass’n, 371 U.S. 195, 200 (1962). … This strongly weighs against finding that Defendant Tek clearly and explicitly made himself person- ally liable for Defendant Patriot’s obligations. Mason Tenders, 301 F.3d at 54.
Cited 0 timesUnknownPuchalski v. FM Construction, Inc.
District Court, E.D. New York · Nov 16, 2020
Plaintiff qualifies as an intended beneficiary of the CBA. … Defendants have not established prejudice that would warrant denial of Plaintiff’s motion.
Cited 0 timesUnknownKilloran v. Westhampton Beach School District
District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 27, 2024
“is a qualified individual with a disability”; (2) Defendants are “subject to one of the Acts”; and (3) A.K. … Education Department, and not appeals before a federal district court, since it clearly states: “Applications for reopening are addressed solely to the discretion of the commissioner . . . .”
Cited 0 timesUnknownKilloran v. Westhampton Beach School District
District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 26, 2024
“is a qualified individual with a disability”; (2) Defendants are “subject to one of the Acts”; and (3) A.K. … Education Department, and not appeals before a federal district court, since it clearly states: “Applications for reopening are addressed solely to the discretion of the commissioner . . . .”
Cited 0 timesUnknownKilloran v. Westhampton Beach School District
District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 26, 2024
“is a qualified individual with a disability”; (2) Defendants are “subject to one of the Acts”; and (3) A.K. … Education Department, and not appeals before a federal district court, since it clearly states: “Applications for reopening are addressed solely to the discretion of the commissioner . . . .”
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. New York · Dec 17, 2021
Bad faith may exist “where a party deliberately waited to see how they would fare on the prior motion to dismiss before requesting leave to amend” or “when a party withholds facts clearly known to it prior to the filing … In sum, Defendant Goodman has not established that grounds exist to warrant the denial of Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend. B.
Cited 0 timesUnknownKilloran v. Westhampton Beach School District
District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 26, 2024
“is a qualified individual with a disability”; (2) Defendants are “subject to one of the Acts”; and (3) A.K. … Education Department, and not appeals before a federal district court, since it clearly states: “Applications for reopening are addressed solely to the discretion of the commissioner . . . .”
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. New York · Jun 17, 2020
A plaintiff seeking to establish that her impairments meet or equal the severity of an impairment in the Listings must establish that she “satisfies all of the criteria of that listing, including any relevant criteria … Here, the ALJ’s rationale for according significant weight to CE Teli’s opinion is clearly insufficient.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. New York · Mar 18, 2021
In order to qualify for preemption under the statute, the lender must establish that he or she “ma[de] or invest[ed] in loans aggregating more than $1,000,000 per year.” 12 U.S.C.A … , not whether such facts actually had been established.”)
Cited 0 timesUnknownHymes v. Bank of America, N.A.
District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 30, 2019
Dodd–Frank repeatedly uses “applicable” to qualify references to state law, federal law, or both. … Mar. 21, 2019) (“The loan agreement clearly provided for these additional charges and, therefore, Plaintiff has failed to allege how they were materially deceptive . . . .”).
Cited 0 timesUnknownCantero v. Bank Of America, N.A.
District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 30, 2019
Dodd–Frank repeatedly uses “applicable” to qualify references to state law, federal law, or both. … Mar. 21, 2019) (“The loan agreement clearly provided for these additional charges and, therefore, Plaintiff has failed to allege how they were materially deceptive . . . .”).
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. New York · Aug 27, 2024
LLC, 780 F.3d at 82 (noting that although these four factors “structurally[] apply to both predominance and superiority, they more clearly implicate the superiority inquiry” (citing Vega v. … liability, the risks of establishing damages, and the risks of maintaining the class through trial.”
Cited 0 timesUnknownCambridge Pavers, Inc. v. Armorproof Paving & Masonry LI, Inc. and Thomas J. O’Leary
District Court, E.D. New York · Feb 23, 2026
Federated Dep’t Stores, Inc., 841 F.2d 486, 491 (2d Cir. 1988) (“Although the category in which the mark qualifies . . . is useful in determining its strength, it is not dispositive . . . .”); Kohler Co. v. … In RiseandShine I, the Second Circuit explained that the mark “rise” for a coffee beverage was suggestive but weak because the word “rise” had “strong logical associations” with coffee and “so clearly evoked the claimed
Cited 0 timesUnknownAntoine v. Brooklyn Maids 26, Inc
District Court, E.D. New York · Sep 26, 2020
Supp. 3d 429, 448 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (“[Defendant’s] sexual advances ‘qualified as an unlawful employment practice,’ and [plaintiff] engaged in protected activity each … Mar. 29, 2017) (“The fact that a complaint stands unanswered does not, however, suffice to establish liability on its claims: a default does not establish conclusory allegations, nor
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. New York · Aug 27, 2024
LLC, 780 F.3d at 82 (noting that although these four factors “structurally[] apply to both predominance and superiority, they more clearly implicate the superiority inquiry” (citing Vega v. … liability, the risks of establishing damages, and the risks of maintaining the class through trial.”
Cited 0 timesUnknown
Ask Donna