Case law

Group Health Inc. v. Blue Cross Ass'n

625 F. Supp. 69 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 16, 1985

Under 42 U.S.C. § 1395h(a) a fiscal intermediary is required to provide consultative services to providers to enable them to establish and maintain fiscal records, to serve as a conduit for any information or instructions … In that letter Monin qualified the Insurance Department’s approval of GHI’s application to acquire Hillcrest on two conditions.

Ashley v. Gonzalez

District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 30, 2020

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability for conduct that ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Even when a right is clearly established, however, “a government official is still entitled to qualified immunity if ‘it was objectively reasonable for him to believe that his actions were lawful at the time of the challenged

Application of James

241 F. Supp. 858 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 28, 1965

The former statute is clearly not applicable, since it does not purport to confer original jurisdiction but rather to prescribe the scope of relief which may be granted when jurisdiction otherwise exists. … “The concept that the court should order the individual defendants to request Congress to give equitable relief to the plaintiffs violates the well established principle of separation of powers.

Linval v. John Does 1-10

District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 21, 2024

A qualified immunity defense should be resolved “at the earliest possible stage in litigation,” Hunter v. … “Unless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law”— which Plaintiff’s allegations do not—“a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement

Asheville Mica Co. v. Commodity Credit Corp.

239 F. Supp. 383 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 4, 1965

The doctrine of governmental immunity from suit is not presently judicially extended to a government corporation authorized to engage in commercial transactions with the public, unless it clearly appears from the language … immunity.

Turner v. City Of New York

District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 19, 2019

“Police officers generally enjoy a qualified immunity from liability for their discretionary actions if their conduct does not ‘violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person … are entitled to qualified immunity for that conduct.

Grant v. Thomas

District Court, S.D. New York · May 20, 2019

Qualified immunity shields government officials whose conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … “The issues on qualified immunity are: (1) whether plaintiff has shown facts making out violation of a constitutional right; (2) if so, whether that right was ‘clearly established’; and (3) even if the right was ‘clearly

Fidelity Partners, Inc. v. Philippine Export & Foreign Loan Guarantee Corp

921 F. Supp. 1113 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 2, 1996

such assets are “immune from execution.” … Although the prior litigation between Phil-guarantee and Fidelity’s predecessor established that “Philguarantee’s assets located in the Philippines are immune from execution,” id. 267 Cal.Rptr. at 481 , the California courts

Raul De La Cruz v. City of New York et al.

District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 31, 2026

Qualified immunity “shields police officers acting in their official capacity from suits for damages ... unless their actions violate clearly-established rights of which an objectively reasonable official would have known … A plaintiff seeking to defeat a qualified immunity defense must “plead[ ] facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of

United States v. Ostrer

481 F. Supp. 407 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 27, 1979

In the instant indictment, the language complained of appears in paragraphs which are clearly denominated as including only “means.” … Although the federal government must grant use immunity to a witness granted immunity in the state courts, it need not grant full transactional immunity. Murphy v.

De Letelier v. Republic of Chile

567 F. Supp. 1490 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 28, 1983

One point that does emerge clearly from the legislative *1499 history, however, is that the burden of establishing FSIA immunity lies with the party claiming it. H.R.Rep. … LAN is correct that there is a strong verbal similarity between the provision lifting jurisdictional immunity in commercial cases, § 1605(a)(2) 6 and the provision in question, § 1610(a)(2), which lifts execution immunity

Coakley v. Jaffe

49 F. Supp. 2d 615 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 23, 1999

Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 , 96 S.Ct. 984 , 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976) (absolute immunity for initiation of prosecution) Barr v. Abrams, 810 F.2d 358, 362 (2d Cir.1987) (absolute immunity for procuring arrest warrant). … While a prosecutor receives only qualified immunity from § 1983 claims where his conduct is investigative in nature, see Buckley, there is some authority for the proposition that a prosecutor is entitled to absolute immunity

Rivera v. Wohlrab

232 F. Supp. 2d 117 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 6, 2002

Finally, Defendants argue that, in any event, they are protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity from being held personally responsible from the alleged violations. II. DISCUSSION A. … In addition, since the hearing officer’s obligation to conduct an independent assessment of the confidential informant has not been established in this district, the Defendants are protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity

Weiss v. City University of New York

District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 2, 2021

Qualified Immunity Defendants contend that the CUNY Board Members, Milliken, Raab and Nord are entitled to qualified immunity because 1) Plaintiff has not established a right … The applicability of qualified immunity is a fact-specific inquiry, and may only be established at the motion to dismiss stage if it is “based on facts appearing on the face of the complaint.” Felix v.

American Global Lines, Inc. v. United States

645 F. Supp. 783 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 10, 1986

However, the discretionary function exception to the FTCA’s waiver of sovereign immunity was not restated in the SIAA. … They claimed that the Coast Guard had been negligent in failing to establish a comprehensive program to protect the public from vessels that had been decertified.

Aegis Insurance Services, Inc. v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey

468 F. Supp. 2d 508 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 12, 2006

Clearly, this was not routine City business. … In particular, the Port Authority contends that the “World Trade Center Building Performance Study” issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (the “FEMA Report”) clearly establishes that the decision of the FDNY to

Gucci America, Inc. v. Hall & Associates

135 F. Supp. 2d 409 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 14, 2001

Moreover, the complaint clearly identifies Hall as the “information content provider.” (See Compl. ¶¶ 3C, 14-16.) … Similarly, trademark plaintiffs bear a high burden in establishing “knowledge” of contributory infringement.

Triguero v. Consolidated Rail Corp.

585 F. Supp. 1202 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 2, 1984

However, Universal can claim immunity from a third-party action for contribution only if Trigue-ro qualifies as an employee under the Act. McIntyre v. Farrell Lines, 524 F.Supp. 99 (S.D.N.Y.1981); Brkaric v. … To prevail on its motion for summary judgment against Conrail’s claim for contribution, Universal must establish the absence of a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Triguero qualifies as an employee.

United States v. New York Dock Co.

100 F. Supp. 303 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 2, 1951

no other immunity”. … Hence, when Congress establishes such an agency, authorizes it to engage in commercial and business transactions with the public, and permits it to ‘sue and be sued’, it cannot be lightly assumed that restrictions on that

Catskill Development, L.L.C. v. Park Place Entertainment Corp.

204 F. Supp. 2d 647 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 8, 2002

Regis *648 Mohawk Tribe that had waived sovereign immunity in the various agreements that are at the center of this action for inducing breach of contract. … Plaintiffs allege that information developed during the depositions the Court did permit — those of Chiefs Ransom and Smoke, who were clearly officers of the St.