Case law

Shariff v. Coombe

655 F. Supp. 2d 274 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 7, 2009

“The party seeking summary judgment bears the burden of establishing that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that the undisputed facts establish her right to judgment as a matter of law.” Rodriguez v. … In order to establish discriminatory animus, “a plaintiff may rely on a burden-shifting technique similar to that adopted in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v.

Allen v. New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision

District Court, S.D. New York · May 19, 2022

Qualified Immunity Both Defendant Providers and Administrators moved pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss for qualified immunity. … actions did not violate any clearly established right.”

O'REILLY v. Wyman

305 F. Supp. 228 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 22, 1969

By virtue of the amendment, two income categories were established, the amounts depending on the number in the family, (1) public assistance level and (2) a level higher than public assistance, but which qualifies a person … Furthermore, whenever classifications are established by law, there are bound to be borderline cases.

Content v. Curran

District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 22, 2022

“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

Santiago v. Anthony Annucci

District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 24, 2021

Finally, qualified immunity provides a third independent basis to dismiss Plaintiff’s procedural due process claim. … The doctrine of qualified immunity shields 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

Debary v. Harrah's Operating Co., Inc.

465 F. Supp. 2d 250 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 20, 2006

The parties’ obligations under the DCA were clearly defined. … Therefore, this court finds that the LPA clearly evidences no intent to benefit Monticello.

United States v. Solow

138 F. Supp. 812 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 17, 1956

Thus it clearly informs the defendant of the essential ingredients of the charge to enable him to prepare for trial and to defend himself against it, and to protect him against another prosecution based upon the same facts … However, he confessed error because he felt that the repeated instructions by the Trial Court that the “defendants must have known or had reasonable grounds for believing that Stansbury was a witness” improperly qualified

Walpex Trading Co. v. Yacimientos Petroliferos Fiscales Bolivianos

789 F. Supp. 1268 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 21, 1992

For example, the Supreme Court has cited the legislative history of section 1606 with approval in stating that: The language and history of the FSIA clearly establish that the Act was not intended to affect the substantive … Thus, there can be no dispute that, under clearly established principles of Bolivian law, the breach of contract action must fail.

Marley v. Ibelli

203 F. Supp. 2d 302 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 31, 2001

is considered an “independent establishment of the United States.” … The FTCA is a limited waiver of sovereign immunity.

EM LTD. v. the Republic of Argentina

720 F. Supp. 2d 273 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 7, 2010

Investments by the pension funds in Republic debt were clearly not appropriate, safe investments. … In any event, BCRA, clearly upon orders from the Republic, added substantially to its U.S. dollar reserves in the year 2005.

Nolan v. City of New York

District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 25, 2024

In support of the qualified immunity defense, defendants argue that Officer Deloren is entitled to qualified immunity because “there was no authority from the Second Circuit or the Supreme Court holding that . . . … Instead, the defendants’ theory — that the complaint shows no unconstitutional policy or practice of the City and that the plaintiff’s rights, whether or not clearly established, were not violated, see Def. Mot.

Krisel v. Duran

258 F. Supp. 845 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 17, 1966

appears that the Puerto Rico Legislature intended to endow EDA with the Commonwealth’s sovereign immunity. … The governmental obligation, so clearly defined in this agreement, and the Commonwealth’s right in the event of breach, negate plaintiff’s claim that EDA is the party in interest.

Volt Technical Services Corp. v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

648 F. Supp. 578 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 1, 1986

In the context of § 101(a)(15)(H)(ii), the INS now interprets proposed employment as temporary only where it is clearly shown that the petitioner’s need for the beneficiary’s services or labor is of a short, identified length … establish that Volt’s need for nuclear start-up technicians will end in the “near, definable future” as required by § 101(a)(15)(H)(ii).

Maxwell

District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 19, 2026

immunity. … Accordingly, Defendants have carried their burden to establish that probable cause existed at the time of Plaintiff’s arrest, or, in the alternative, the Defendant Officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

Luria v. Civil Aeronautics Board

473 F. Supp. 242 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 6, 1979

“The United States, as sovereign, is immune from suit save as it consents to be sued, . . . and the terms of its consent to be sued in any court define that court’s jurisdiction to entertain the suit.” United States v. … The CAB’s regulations indicate clearly that the bond is for the benefit of the tour participants. See 14 C.F.R. § 378a.31(c); 14 C.F.R. Part 378a, Appendix A. .

Velez v. City of New York

District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 1, 2019

clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Qualified immunity “may also be available when, even though plaintiff’s federal rights and the official’s permissible actions were clearly delineated at the time of the action complained of, it was nonetheless ‘objectively

United States Steel Corp. v. United States

305 F. Supp. 497 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 1, 1969

Establishment of a specific external qualifying factor is a prerequisite to relief. III. … statement appended thereto were “clearly sufficient to bring v. within [the statute].”

Boe v. Colello

447 F. Supp. 607 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 3, 1978

of abstention and comity presented more complex issues, the Court’s own research was what permitted it to even reach the merits. 16 This Court’s experience, both at the bench and bar over extended years, qualifies it to … The town was immune from suit. City of Kenosha v. Bruno, 412 U.S. 507 , 93 S.Ct. 2222 , 37 L.Ed.2d 109 (1973); Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 , 81 S.Ct. 473 , 5 L.Ed.2d 492 (1961). 3 . Pub.L.

Brathwaite v. City of New York

District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 5, 2023

“In general, public officials are entitled to qualified immunity if (1) their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights, or (2) it was objectively reasonable for them to believe their acts did not … “The availability of the defense depends on whether a reasonable officer could have believed his action to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information [he or she] possessed.” Id.

Booker v. Griffin

District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 23, 2024

The Court can afford a defendant summary judgment as to qualified immunity if the Court finds: “[1] the asserted rights were not clearly established, or [2] if the evidence is such that, even when it is viewed in the light … Because the relevant law was clearly established, Defendants are not entitled to a qualified immunity defense. See Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818–19.