Case law

Wear-Ever Aluminum, Inc. v. Sipos

184 F. Supp. 364 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 2, 1960

Clearly, therefore, under the recognized criteria, the mere fact that a foreign corporation has a place of business in a State where it is qualified to do business is not sufficient to- make that location its principal place … There is no dispute that plaintiff is both qualified and is doing business within the Southern District of New York.

Giles v. City of Mount Vernon

District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 11, 2024

“Under federal law, a police officer is entitled to qualified immunity where (1) his conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … Qualified Immunity Defendants reiterate their arguments as to qualified immunity with respect to Plaintiff’s malicious prosecution claims.

Kaplun v. United States

303 F. Supp. 733 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 26, 1969

restricted to a charitable purpose, qualified for a deduction under Section 2055(a) (3). … collection constituted a charitable trust and, moreover, asserted that the State of Israel, as a sovereign nation, could not qualify as a trustee. .

Congregation Rabbinical College of Tartikov, Inc. v. Village of Pomona

138 F. Supp. 3d 352 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 29, 2015

In response, Defendants argue that the defenses—absolute immunity and qualified immunity—do not bar only damages claims. (Defs.’ Mem. 60.) … Second, because, as explained above, qualified immunity only apples to damages claims, that defense is inapplicable here.

Gunn v. Malani

District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 28, 2023

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Qualified immunity shields a defendant from standing trial or facing other burdens of litigation “if either (a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for the

Marinoff v. City College of New York

357 F. Supp. 2d 672 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 17, 2005

immunity because there is no clearly established right to provide philosophical counseling on the City College campus. 3 Marinoff responds that (1) the philosophical counseling activities that the moratorium impacted were … matters of public concern; (2) the moratorium infringed his First Amendment right to speak out on a matter of public concern; and (3) defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity- A. ' The Summary Judgment Standard

American Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. North American Industries of New York, Inc.

783 F. Supp. 810 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 18, 1992

The text then goes on to confer immunity from Sherman Act liability on “anticompetitive conduct ... taken pursuant to a ‘clearly articulated state policy.’ ” Id. … Nothing in the footnote or in the text purports to confer immunity from Sherman Act liability on anticompetitive conduct alleged to violate a “program” adopted pursuant to a “clearly articulated state policy” simply because

Acha v. Beame

438 F. Supp. 70 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 28, 1977

With respect to hiring practices, the discriminatory act for statute of limitations purposes, occurs when a male police officer is hired in the place of a qualified female with a higher test score. … Educational Equality *78 League, 415 U.S. 605, 622 , 94 S.Ct. 1323 , 39 L.Ed.2d 630 (1974) 3 To succeed under section 1983, plaintiffs must establish a “deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the

Harper v. Karabeles

District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 6, 2020

“Qualified immunity shields law enforcement officers from § 1983 claims for money damages provided that their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have been … Therefore, “even if a right is clearly established in certain respects, qualified immunity will still shield an officer from liability if ‘officers of reasonable competence could disagree’ on the legality of the action

Evans Medical Ltd. v. American Cyanamid Co.

11 F. Supp. 2d 338 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 10, 1998

In this case, the record clearly establishes that there is no genuine issue of material fact with respect to the infringe *358 ment of any of the patent claims as construed by the Court. … Clearly, it did not. 20 .

United States v. Mannino

551 F. Supp. 13 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 4, 1982

However, Denno is clearly distinguishable. … The burden is upon the government to establish waiver. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, supra at 236, 93 S.Ct. at 2052 .

Regnante v. Securities & Exchange Officials

134 F. Supp. 3d 749 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 28, 2015

Mar. 16, 2015) (same, where claims based on conduct that allegedly precluded plaintiffs from participating in government programs set aside for qualified veteran-owned businesses). 11 Conversely, the mechanism of injury in … County of Rockland, 450 Fed.Appx. 15, 19 (2d Cir.2011) (summary order) (“The Supreme Court has spoken clearly that a pro se litigant, whether or not he is a lawyer, may not receive attorney’s fees under Section 1988.”); Gordon

Rose v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

13 F. Supp. 2d 516 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 16, 1998

Additionally, this unexplained gap in discriminatory pattern clearly negates “a dogged pattern of disparate treatment”. Cable, 4 F.Supp.2d 120, 125 . … PUNITIVE DAMAGES As a government entity, the Port Authority is immune from punitive damages. In City of Newport v.

Hospital Ass'n of New York State, Inc. v. Toia

435 F. Supp. 819 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 4, 1977

The second representation was clearly intended to take effect only if the State was ultimately found to owe the plaintiffs money in this lawsuit — the very issue raised by the 11th Amendment question. … Moreover, we doubt plaintiffs’ ability to establish this proposition.

In Re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) Products Liability Litigation

364 F. Supp. 2d 329 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 3, 2004

When a party challenges the removal of the action from state *332 court, the burden falls on the removing party "to establish its right to a federal forum by `competent proof.'" [5] "Out of respect for the independence of … agency; (2) it has a colorable federal defense; and (3) there is a causal nexus between the federal direction and the conduct at issue. [19] The second requirement is broadly construed; a defense need only be colorable, not clearly

McGriff v. Superintendent Keyser

District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 13, 2019

As to their qualified immunity defense, the question presented is whether these two defendants violated Plaintiff’s due process rights that were “clearly established.” Terebesi, 764 F.3d at 230. … Keyser’s defense of qualified immunity turns on whether Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights were “clearly established.”

Scott v. Rosenberger

District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 24, 2020

on qualified immunity grounds. … “Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known,” Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S.

Cotz v. Mastroeni

476 F. Supp. 2d 332 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 23, 2007

However, the visitation order does not clearly establish such a right. (See id., Ex. 16.) … At a minimum, Lampert is entitled to qualified immunity.

Knoeffler v. Town of Mamakating

126 F. Supp. 2d 305 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 12, 2000

immunity.” … immunity defense.

Clavizzao v. United States

706 F. Supp. 2d 342 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 30, 2009

Claims Against the IRS The IRS claims that the Court lacks jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity. Sovereign immunity dictates that the United States cannot be sued without its consent. See United States v. … Kitchen, 156 F.3d 1025, 1029 (10th Cir.1997) (“[Section 6332(e) ... clearly bars money damages against a person who has complied with an IRS levy.”).