Case law

Fenster v. Leary

264 F. Supp. 153 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 13, 1967

He further contends that the statute is repugnant to the thirteenth amendment and denies him the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States. … The instant case, is clearly distinguishable from Dombrowski and Baggett .

Best v. Merchant

District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 9, 2022

“[E]ven where even when probable cause is lacking, a police officer is entitled to qualified immunity if ‘(1) her conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Defendant Merchant’s invocation of qualified immunity does not alter this conclusion.

Diversified Carting, Inc. v. City of New York

423 F. Supp. 2d 85 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 15, 2005

Subject matter jurisdiction is, of course, essential for Plaintiff to proceed, and to establish it here, a plaintiff must “demonstrate a specific statutory waiver of sovereign immunity.” Lawson v. Fed. Emergency Mgmt. … As SRE is clearly designated, let’s turn to the adequacy of the pleadings with respect to the elements of a breach of contract claim. The Complaint alleges each of these necessary elements.

Reino De Espana v. AMERICAN BUREAU OF SHIPPING, INC.

328 F. Supp. 2d 489 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 4, 2004

ABS surveyors inspect particular vessels as to their design, construction, and “operational maintenance” in light of standards established by ABS. (Id. ¶¶ 16-21.) … The FSIA House Report notes that “notwithstanding that the foreign state may be immune under subsections (a) and (b), the foreign state nevertheless would not be immune from a setoff.

Taylor v. Trigeno

District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 17, 2023

Qualified immunity is a judge-made doctrine that “protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Taylor violated clearly established law. The Court is not required to develop an argument to support a finding of qualified immunity that was not presented to it by the defendants’ counsel. C.

Hayes v. Condlin

District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 26, 2024

entitled to qualified immunity for their action. … “Because qualified immunity is ‘an affirmative defense that reflects an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability, it is appropriate to decide the issue of qualified immunity, when raised, at an early stage

Hightower v. United States

205 F. Supp. 2d 146 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 26, 2002

The doctrine of sovereign immunity clearly precludes a Bivens action against an officer in his or her official capacity, a federal agency or the United States. See Meyer, 510 U.S. at 484-86 , 114 S.Ct. 996 ; Kentucky v. … Plaintiffs constitutional claims against defendants are necessarily preempted by the expansive scope of the remedial scheme established under the CSRA and FECA.

Department of Economic Development v. Arthur Andersen & Co.

139 F.R.D. 295 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 18, 1991

Clearly, a government agency can be a ‘client’ and agency lawyers can function as ‘attorneys’ within the relationship contemplated by the privilege. Coastal States Gas Corp. v. … DED’S CLAIMS OF WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGE ALSO FAIL Work prepared in anticipation of litigation is subject to qualified immunity. Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3).

Philippeaux v. North Central Bronx Hospital

871 F. Supp. 640 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 19, 1994

time of establishment of the resulting eligible list. … Rosalie Galan conspire[d] in faffing to hire plaintiff and chose a less qualified candidate.”

Weinraub v. Glen Rauch Securities, Inc.

399 F. Supp. 2d 454 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 11, 2005

Weinraub’s claims appear to be frivolous, clearly precluded by existing (and well-settled) law, and unsupported by any cognizable argument for the modification of existing law. … NASD Dispute Resolution, Inc., 289 F.Supp.2d 438, 440 (S.D.N.Y.2003) (NASD arbitrators enjoy arbitral immunity). 81 . See Karedes v.

United States v. Ghailani

743 F. Supp. 2d 242 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 17, 2010

Where “the exclusionary rule does not *255 result in appreciable deterrence, than, clearly, its use ... is unwarranted.” ’ Id. at 11 , 115 S.Ct. 1185 (quoting United States v. … are appropriate for immunity violations because unlike coerced confessions, immunity statutes grant constitutional approval to the act of compelling the testimony; and second, immunity statutes create a limiting framework

Klinghoffer v. S.N.C. Achille Lauro Ed Altrigestione Motonave Achille Lauro in Amministrazione Straordinaria

739 F. Supp. 854 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 7, 1990

The ATA also forbids establishing or maintaining “an office, headquarters, premises, or other facilities or establishments within the jurisdiction of the United States at the behest or direction of, or with funds provided … Such func *864 tional privileges and immunities certainly extend to immunity from legal process in respect of words spoken or written or any act performed in the exercise of the observer function.

Mandel v. Champion International Corp.

361 F. Supp. 2d 320 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 21, 2005

Southern New England Telecomm., 208 F.3d 384, 386 (2d Cir.2000). *326 In this case, the Defendant argues that the Plaintiff cannot establish the second element — that she was qualified for the Buyer position. 5 In particular … This argument is also unpersuasive, as Plaintiff has clearly alleged that the constructive discharge was in retaliation for filing the EEOC charge and, as such, is clearly within the scope of Butts . 5 .

Plumey v. New York State

389 F. Supp. 2d 491 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 15, 2005

New York has not waived it’s immunity in the case at bar, and it is well established that Congress did not abrogate state immunity when enacting 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . 4 As plaintiff seeks only monetary damages, defendant New … The statute of limitations is measured from the time of filing, and any delays which occur after the claim is brought clearly do not impact whether plaintiffs claims are barred. 7 *498 Therefore, the events of September 11

Rolkiewicz v. The City Of New York

District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 3, 2020

The second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis asks whether the right in question was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the violation.” Felix v. City of New York, 408 F. … This rule, which looks to the objective reasonableness of the challenged act, even where it is violative of clearly established law, ensures that plaintiffs cannot “convert the rule of qualified immunity ... into a

Dillard v. Runyon

928 F. Supp. 1316 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 25, 1996

He found that USPS established that it had just cause to remove Dillard because she: (1) violated the terms of her settlement agreement, and (2) failed to call in her absences. (Arb. … The November 6, 1993 Notice of Removal also announced its purpose clearly.

Camelot Group, Ltd. v. W. A. Krueger Co.

486 F. Supp. 1221 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 12, 1980

it. 10 The standards to be applied in assessing a claim of privilege are well-established. … Each prosecutor opposed immunity and the court denied the motion. Each local county prosecutor declined to consent to the grant of immunity on general principles.

Kirkland v. New York State Department of Correctional Services

374 F. Supp. 1361 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 1, 1974

However clearly the issues are delineated by well-established precedent, nothing can make easy the task of deciding a case such as this. … The qualifying examination must then be fashioned to test for the presence of these general traits.” 9 Vulcan, 490 F.2d at *1372 395.

LaSalle National Bank v. Duff & Phelps Credit Rating Co.

951 F. Supp. 1071 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 26, 1996

Accepting plaintiffs’ allegations that Duff & Phelps knowingly assisted in Towers’ fraudu *1091 lent scheme, such assistance is clearly insufficient to establish Duff & Phelps’ operation or control of Towers for purposes … Duff & Phelps is Not Immunized from Liability as a “Publisher” Duff & Phelps relies on In re Scott Paper Co. Sec.

Leeds v. Rossell

101 F. Supp. 481 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 2, 1951

Congress, in establishing a preference for veterans over “competing employees”, Sec. 861, without defining the words “competing employees”, must have intended that the Commission determine in the first instance which nonpreference … do not conflict-with the Act and are not clearly unreasonable.