Case law

Maldonado v. Gunsett

District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 4, 2024

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. … “A qualified immunity defense is established if (a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe that his action did not violate such

RSM PRODUCTION CORP. v. Fridman

643 F. Supp. 2d 382 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 19, 2009

Applying that definition the court held that because “treaties, case law and treatises establish that [the foreign sovereign’s] conduct, as alleged ... violates settled principles of international law,” FSIA immunity did … In Wiwa , sovereign immunity was not even an issue, as the plaintiffs in that case were attempting to establish the vicarious liability, under both the ATCA and the TVPA, of various individual and corporate defendants for

Marvin v. Orange County Department of Social Services

District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 16, 2020

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields government officials whose conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … “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

Stephens v. American Home Assurance Co.

811 F. Supp. 937 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 26, 1993

The doctrine set forth in Haney and affirmed in later opinions is not one of immunity, but rather a declaration *963 that no tort liability exists in the first place from which one could be immunized. … Id. at § 895D (Immunities — Public Officers), Comment c; see also id. at § 895D(2).

Madison Fund, Inc. v. Charter Co.

406 F. Supp. 749 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 24, 1975

The complaint as presently framed thus runs afoul of the purchaser/seller requirement for Rule 10b-5 standing as established by the Second Circuit in Birnbaum v. … Because I conclude that the Sherman Act does not in the first instance apply to the facts alleged by plaintiff, the question of antitrust immunity here pares down to irrelevancy. 2 .

Forbes v. Merrill Lynch, Fenner & Smith, Inc.

179 F.R.D. 107 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 6, 1998

Nuwestra’s Conduct which Violates Rule 11 Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, a plaintiff must establish that (1) he is an individual with a disability within the meaning of the act; (2) he is otherwise qualified to … However, it is clearly problematic for a lawyer bringing ADA cases to stand in a courtroom in 1997 and suggest that HIV and AIDS are in fact the same thing. . See Tr., 274-278. .

In Re Blumenberg

191 F. Supp. 904 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 10, 1960

United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 , 71 S.Ct. 814, 818 , 95 L.Ed. 1118 : “The witness is not exonerated from answering merely because he declares that in so doing he would incriminate himself — his say-so does not of itself establish … , “The mere assertion of privilege does not immunize him”. i All that we have here is the assertion of privilege by a custodian who does not claim to speak for the allegedly privileged party.

Escoffier v. New York Police Department

District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 30, 2019

Qualified immunity protects officials from suit if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … For purposes of the qualified immunity analysis, the question is whether such conduct, if used to obtain consent to enter a dwelling, violated clearly established law.

Snowden v. Solomon

District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 31, 2020

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

Fraser v. City Of New York

District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 14, 2022

The City also seeks qualified immunity for the officers, arguing that their failure to disclose potential impeachment material in the form of lawsuits against them did not violate clearly established law. … immunity grounds.

Kantor v. Kahn

463 F. Supp. 1160 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 16, 1979

The FTCA regulations clearly require that: “A claim for personal injury may be presented by the injured person, his duly authorized agent, or legal representative.” … A class action can also be maintained if a class claim has been filed which names the individual claimants, asserts and establishes the authority of the named claimant (or claimants) to present claims on behalf of the unnamed

Gribben v. United States (In Re Gribben)

158 B.R. 920 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 29, 1993

The Court concluded that § 106(c) did not waive immunity as to claims by a bankruptcy estate for money judgments against the Government, but established a waiver only as to actions for declaratory or injunctive relief. … As to the last use, the word is clearly used with a broader meaning than that stated in the Nordic Village dictum.

Days v. Police Department

District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 9, 2020

As such, “qualified immunity shields both state and federal officials from suit unless [1] the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that [2] was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct … • Right to a Fair Trial: “Qualified immunity is unavailable where, as here, the action violates an accused's clearly established constitutional rights [to a fair trial], and no reasonably competent

New York Youth Club v. Town of Harrison

150 F. Supp. 3d 264 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 10, 2015

In the Second Circuit, however, legislative immunity does not apply to local officials sued in their official capacities. See Almonte v. … City of Long Beach, 478 F.3d 100, 106 (2d Cir.2007) (“Immunity, either absolute or qualified, is a personal defense that is available only when officials are sued in their individual capacities.”)

Stambler v. Dillon

288 F. Supp. 646 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 12, 1968

Paragraph SECOND sub. par. 9 of the complaint alleges that Justice Dillon is included as a co-defendant “to establish his part in the conspiracy which is the subject of this action and to give the Court jurisdiction over … The action is now being prosecuted by the Stamblers in person. 4 The court clearly has jurisdiction of the action as against Justice Dillon under section 1343 of Title 28 U.S.C.

Rosario v. New York Times Co.

84 F.R.D. 626 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 27, 1979

Nexus was clearly absent. In Satterwhite v. … It is clear that a qualified privilege of “self-examination” exists to permit free discussion looking toward compliance with law in this case.

Skanga Energy & Marine Ltd. v. Arevenca S.A.

875 F. Supp. 2d 264 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 21, 2012

from suit as a foreign sovereign defendant, and that Skanga has failed to establish the applicability of the commercial activity exception to immunity. … , immunity should not be granted.”

United States v. Articles of Drug Consisting of the Following: 27/1000 Tablet Bottles, More or Less, Labeled in Part: 1000 Tablets Colchicine

442 F. Supp. 1236 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 10, 1978

It is clearly established on the record that the 42 packet lots of dihycon capsules containing the statement “100 capsules” whereas there are only 6 capsules in each packet, violate § 352(a). … The government experts were those most clearly qualified by training and experience to determine whether adequate or well controlled investigations had been undertaken and to evaluate those investigations to decide whether

Taunus Corp. v. City of New York

279 F. Supp. 2d 305 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 27, 2003

Plaintiffs have not made factual allegations that, if proven, would qualify as a particularized injury suffered by the plaintiffs beyond that suffered by the public. … Rather, they must “establish that their injuries were special and different in kind, not merely in degree,” with respect to those in the Frozen Zone. Id. at 1105.

Carmichael v. Chappius

182 F. Supp. 3d 74 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 21, 2016

In so doing, the trial court acted contrary to clearly established federal law. 2. … was "contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law.”