Case law

Consolidated Rubber Tire Co. v. Diamond Rubber Co.

226 F. 455 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 22, 1915

This immunity extended to selling the rubber stock, and we may assume that it also extended to selling complete tires. … It was to protect his customers because only so could he get the fruits of his own decree of immunity.

Hamilton v. City College of the City University of New York

173 F. Supp. 2d 181 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 27, 2001

As for the Due Process and Equal Protection claims, plaintiff has not clearly articulated the bases for the requested relief. … (and validly) abrogated the state’s immunity.

Watson v. Dominican College

75 F. Supp. 2d 222 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 18, 1999

Also because of the grades he received he was no longer able to qualify for financial aid. … To state a claim under § 1985(3), a plaintiff must allege (1) a conspiracy; (2) for the purpose of depriving a person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws or the equal privileges and immunities under the

Palermo v. Rockefeller

323 F. Supp. 478 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 15, 1971

Section 1983 did not abolish the common law immunity of judges. … Proof of such facts would establish a violation of plaintiffs’ Due Process rights.

Johnson v. Rockefeller

58 F.R.D. 42 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 18, 1972

McGhee, 172 U.S. 516, 530 , 19 S.Ct. 269, 274 , 43 L.Ed. 535 (1899)), that holding was qualified by Ex parte Young to the effect that “[t]he fact that the state officer by virtue of his office, has some connection with the … Since the statute has been extensively construed by the state courts, abstention is clearly inappropriate.

United States Steel Corp. v. United States

305 F. Supp. 516 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 2, 1969

If more than one qualifying cause is determined to exist, the effects of the separately-established causes may then be aggregated for quantitative considerations. … Nevertheless, the relevant words of § 442(a) concerning the establishment of qualifying abnormalities are basically unchanged from the words of § 722(b).

Sasser v. Kelley

321 F. Supp. 3d 900 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 2, 2018

Where state court remedies have been exhausted, a federal court cannot grant a petition for a writ of habeas corpus unless the state's decision "was contrary *907 to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established … Finally, Sasser argues that expert testimony from a psychologist would have established that Sasser's brain impairments had "broad-reaching detrimental effects on his ability to function in the world" and would have established

Layne v. The State of New York Department of Correctional and Community Services

District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 29, 2022

, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … If an official’s belief that his action does not violate clearly established law is “objectively reasonable,” he or she is shielded from liability by qualified immunity. Cooper v. City of New Rochelle, 925 F.

Orozco Ex. Rel Arroyo v. Sobol

703 F. Supp. 1113 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 19, 1989

As to his individual capacity, the Commissioner is entitled to qualified immunity “insofar as [his] conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … Consequently, his motion to be dismissed in his personal capacity on the basis of qualified immunity must be denied.

Knight v. New York State Department of Corrections

District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 26, 2019

“Qualified immunity protects officials from liability for civil damages as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Here, as to Plaintiffs’ first and third causes of action regarding the alleged catheter policy, Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because “inmates have no clearly established right to receive

Fletcher Quiller v. Officer Daniel Nunez, Shield No. 18750

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

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for civil damages when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … Qualified immunity requires a two-step analysis: “first, whether the plaintiff established that his constitutional rights were violated, and second, whether the right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of

MINISTRY OF COMMERCE, ETC. v. Marine Tankers Corp.

194 F. Supp. 161 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 23, 1960

I find that these factors are insufficient to establish the proposition urged by respondent. … Moreover, as construed by the courts, the cesser clause does not immunize even the charterer from all personal liability once the cargo is loaded.

Garnes v. City of New York

District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 25, 2025

Qualified Immunity The Court also finds that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields public officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights ...

Bloomfield v. MacShane

522 F. Supp. 2d 616 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 9, 2007

Consequently, it is well established that a federal issue raised by a defendant’s anticipated defense does not create federal question jurisdiction. … SBA Fund asserts that it is a "qualified trust” under this section. 4 .

United States v. Chas. Pfizer & Co.

245 F. Supp. 801 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 9, 1965

Schwartz move to dismiss the indictment as to them on the ground that they are immune from further prosecution pursuant to the anti-trust immunity act of February 25, 1903, 32 Stat. 903 -904, as. amended, 15 U.S.C. §§ 32 … Pfizer scientists conducted these tests and Pfizer representatives stated in test affidavits that tetracycline could not be recovered from these broths in a clearly identifiable form.

Grant v. Hogue

District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 12, 2019

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

Clayton v. City of New York

596 F. Supp. 355 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 25, 1984

This is clearly insufficient under the precedent in this Circuit. See Smith, 456 *360 F.Supp. at 1137; see also Schramm v. … Owen, involved the absence of an immunity, under section 1983, to a municipality for decisions of its high ranking officials, themselves protected by a good faith immunity, which deprive an individual of his constitutional

Thomas v. N.Y. Department of Corrections Community Supervision

District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 29, 2021

Point IV: Defendants Are Entitled to Qualified Immunity Defendants are also entitled to qualified immunity. … “[G]overnment officials performing discretionary functions generally are granted a qualified immunity and are ‘shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

Alexander v. City of New York

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

clearly established at the time of [P]laintiff’s arrest” and the Court’s denial of qualified immunity was clear error. … City of New York, 893 F.3d 83, 92 (2d Cir. 2018) (“[O]fficials can still be on notice that their conduct violates [clearly] established law even in novel factual circumstances, and ‘there can be the rare obvious case, where

Santiago-Monteverde v. Pereira (In re Santiago-Monteverde)

512 B.R. 432 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 27, 2014

The former is a basic gatekeeping inquiry: so long a prospective debtor satisfies the few requirements of section 109(e), eligibility is established. … But an attorney’s sincere belief that his or her actions are taken in the best interest of a client does not, without more, immunize that conduct from a finding of bad faith.