Case law

In Re Joint Eastern & Southern District Asbestos Litigation

774 F. Supp. 116 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 16, 1991

to asbestos in a degree which might qualify him as a member of any exposed cohort for any epidemiological study. … OCF argues that there is no evidence to indicate that Markowitz is qualified to diagnose asbestosis from chest x-rays.

Marinis v. Village of Irvington

212 F. Supp. 2d 220 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 22, 2002

denied the motion as to defendant police officers Andrew Bes-singer, John Fox, and Stephen Tilley, finding disputed issues of fact material to the excessive force claim, and holding that the officers were not entitled to qualified … immunity on the unlawful arrest claim, because they acted in violation of clearly-established constitutional law by arresting Marinis on the basis of an anonymous tip.

El-Bey v. City of New York

151 F. Supp. 2d 285 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 16, 2001

Qualified Immunity Lastly, plaintiffs claims against the various individual City Defendants must fail because such defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … Whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity depends upon whether his actions were objectively legally reasonable “in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time [those actions were] taken

La Torres v. Walker

216 F. Supp. 2d 157 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 12, 2000

La Torres’ trial qualified as admissions or exceptions to the hearsay rule and therefore were appropriately admitted by the trial judge.” … The AEDPA established a one-year filing deadline for federal habeas corpus petitions.

Dejesus v. City of Yonkers

District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 13, 2025

“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 … “[I]n the qualified immunity context, an officer invoking the probable cause defense need only establish that he or she acted with arguable probable cause[.]” Schlaepfer v.

Munafo v. Helfand

140 F. Supp. 234 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 5, 1956

The earlier references are clearly descriptio personae and are intended to show that the defendant was acquainted with press conference techniques and aware of the likely wide distribution of statements made by him, written … The complaint alleges that the words of the oral utterance were identical with those set forth in the press release and if the proof establishes they were read by the defendant from the release the reading therefrom would

Bustop Shelters, Inc. v. Convenience & Safety Corp.

521 F. Supp. 989 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 10, 1981

Nothing could be more clearly a joint effort to influence public officials, which is precisely what Noerr and Pennington exclude from the coverage of the Sherman Act. … It may have been improper, but it was clearly an example of a “genuine effort to influence” official action, which the Court in Noerr found squarely within the antitrust immunity. 365 U.S. at 144 , 81 S.Ct. at 533 .

Knudsen v. United States

500 F. Supp. 90 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 2, 1980

To hold otherwise would expose the Government to limitless liability, while the surrender of sovereign immunity under the FTCA is a limited, specific waiver of that immunity. Clemente, supra at 1146 ; United States v. … The United States has not waived sovereign immunity as to such a claim. In United States v.

Algarin v. New York City Department of Correction

460 F. Supp. 2d 469 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 30, 2006

immunity. … immunity. .

Balchan v. City School District of New Rochelle

District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 21, 2023

If an official’s belief that his or her 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. … Mar. 31, 2021) (denying motion to dismiss on the basis of qualified immunity where “Plaintiff had the clearly established constitutional right to be free from . . . sex discrimination, by a state actor, and that no

Driscoll v. City of New York

650 F. Supp. 1522 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 12, 1987

A municipality will be immune from antitrust liability only if it acts as an instrumentality of the state, through which the state has clearly and affirmatively chosen to implement its policies. … In the case at bar, both Municipal Defendants will be immune only if acting “as an instrumentality of the state, through which the state has clearly and affirmatively chosen to implement its policies.”

In Re September 11 Litigation

280 F. Supp. 2d 279 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 9, 2003

Clearly, the duty of care extends to cover those embraced by the risk of the terrorists’ conduct. … I hold that the allegation is sufficient to establish Boeing’s duty.

Wyckoff v. Office of Commissioner of Baseball

211 F. Supp. 3d 615 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 29, 2016

Baseball and almost two decades after Toolson, to overturn those cases judicially when Congress, by its positive inaction, has allowed those decisions to stand for so long and, far beyond mere inference and implication, has clearly … And Federal Baseball and Toolson clearly extend the baseball exemption to the entire “business of providing public baseball games for profit between clubs of professional baseball players.”

Washington v. DuBois

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

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability as long as their actions are discretionary in nature and do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … “Qualified immunity is available ‘when the undisputed facts establish that it was objectively reasonable for the defendants to believe that their actions did not violate clearly established rights.” Dawkins v.

Smith v. Potter

187 F. Supp. 2d 93 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 15, 2001

Standard For A Mandatory Preliminary Injunction To obtain a preliminary injunction, a party seeking such relief must establish that: (1) the injunction is necessary to prevent irreparable harm, and (2) either (a) a likelihood … Saban Entm’t, Inc., 60 F.3d 27, 34 (2d Cir.1995), the moving party must meet a higher standard than ordinarily required by “clearly” showing that he is entitled to the relief sought, or that “extreme or very serious damage

Leutwyler v. Royal Hashemite Court of Jordan

184 F. Supp. 2d 303 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 15, 2001

At any rate, whether or not the discussion in Oboler is binding, it is clearly correct. … Whatever might have been the case under common law, the Copyright Act is designed to preempt common-law remedies, and to establish a uniform and comprehensive national system of copyright protection. 17 U.S.C. § 301 ; see

Elias v. Village of Spring Valley

81 F. Supp. 3d 312 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 26, 2015

In addition, because I conclude that there is no evidence that Gilles’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated, I need not address qualified immunity. 77 B. … In any event, a qualified immunity analysis would likely favor Officer Roper because, at minimum, reasonable officers could disagree over whether the use of deadly force here was permissible. See Brosseau v.

Sostre v. Rockefeller

312 F. Supp. 863 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 14, 1970

"[A] right of access to the courts is one of the rights a prisoner clearly retains. … This court has no discretion to deny injunctive relief to a person who clearly establishes, after a trial on the merits, that he is being denied his constitutional rights. Cf. Henry v.

Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad

196 F. Supp. 724 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 9, 1961

While in 1947 and 1952, the defendants voted against any increase, this was clearly action on their part which would have been unnecessary had they not felt bound by the increases, as was also their participation in 1946 … Any provision or amendment in the Plan qualifying or enlarging the parties’ rights and obligations effected a parallel change in the rights and obligations of the earlier agreement.

Shapiro v. Glekel

380 F. Supp. 1053 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 28, 1974

Anyon, the Appellate Division stated: We are . . . not prepared to admit that accountants are immune from the consequences of their negligence because those who employ them have conducted their own business negligently. . … These are persuasive arguments, but it seems to me that they go too far in trying to establish the contract as the basis of duty.