Case law

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.

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.”

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.

Brown v. O'Neill

District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 14, 2023

Qualified Immunity Defendants move for summary judgment as to all claims against Officer Longe on the basis that he is entitled to qualified immunity. Dkt. … Such rights were also clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.

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

SW BY JW v. Warren

528 F. Supp. 2d 282 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 16, 2007

See B.D., 130 F.Supp.2d at 439 (acknowledging that Section 504 ‘“does not clearly establish an obligation to meet a disabled person’s particular needs vis-a-vis the needs of other handicapped individuals, but mandate[s] only … This is not the sort of case ... in which a school has failed to implement services that were specified or otherwise clearly stated in an IEP.

Martinez v. Golding

499 F. Supp. 2d 561 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 27, 2007

Once officers possess facts sufficient to establish probable cause, they are neither required nor allowed to sit as prosecutor, judge or jury. … Clearly, the existence of injuries consistent with either consensual intercourse or forcible rape supports the complainant's version of events. 10 .

King v. Keyser

District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 8, 2020

For a qualified immunity analysis, “the essential question is whether, [at the time of the alleged events], the [r]ight was established ‘in a particularized sense so that the contours of the right would have been clear … Thus, the Court did not err in granting qualified immunity. See id. at 66–67.

United States v. Paige

421 F. Supp. 1024 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 1, 1976

She requested immunity, but the request was denied. Paige alleges that at this point Smith advised her to testify truthfully, explaining: “I informed Mr. … Not only does this cure any alleged erroneous legal understanding conveyed by counsel, it clearly reveals the Government’s careful observation of due process of law in questioning Paige.

Schoeps v. Bayern

27 F. Supp. 3d 540 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 27, 2014

reasons, even if, contrary to fact, plaintiffs could satisfy the “based upon” requirement of the first exception under § 1605(a)(2), they would still fail to satisfy the further requirement that the events detailed above qualify … Thus the fact that Thannhauser was a United States resident is wholly irrelevant to the Court’s sovereign immunity determination under the first prong of § 1605(a)(2).

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.

SERVAAS INC. v. Republic of Iraq

686 F. Supp. 2d 346 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 19, 2010

Defendant comes within any ... exception to foreign sovereign immunity” set out in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1330 , 1602 et seq.; (2) “no United States court possesses [personal] jurisdiction … The Iraqi Central Bank is the one that established a line of credit with the U.S. Banks. THE COURT: That's what I thought. MR.

Ozbirman v. Regional Manpower Administrator, United States Department of Labor

335 F. Supp. 467 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 17, 1971

Yet, such discretion does not immunize administrative action from judicial review, when, for example, there has been an abuse of discretion, Wong Wing Hang v. *471 Immigration and Naturalization Service, 360 F.2d 715 (2d … Ozbirman alleges that the Secretary of Labor has established a category of tailors “regardless of individual differences concerning the applications.”

New York v. Grasso

350 F. Supp. 2d 498 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 9, 2004

Indeed, the very caption of this section of the complaint, trumpeted by Grasso as facially revealing the AG’s alleged federal agenda (D.Br.2), quite clearly emphasizes the structural conflicts of interest created by the regulatory … NYSE, 99 F.3d 49, 59 (2d Cir.1996), the Court found the NYSE immune for actions taken in disciplinary proceedings mandated by federal law.

Hodges v. Attorney General

976 F. Supp. 2d 480 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 30, 2013

Therefore, to the extent that Plaintiff is complaining of his TAD assignment, his time to complain of that initial assignment had clearly expired. … As such, they clearly do not amount to the kind of “discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult” required to establish a hostile work environment. Hayut, 352 F.3d at 745.

Mukadam v. U. S. Department of Labor

458 F. Supp. 164 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 13, 1978

In those cases, the courts properly confined themselves to ruling on the narrower ground that an employer’s interest is clearly protected by the statute and left open the question whether the alien’s interest alone was sufficient … If the only objection to the decision of the Certifying Officer were a dispute as to whether “many” or “several” workers were already available, we would dismiss Mukadam’s claims as clearly unpersuasive in light of the narrow

Vidal v. The State of New York

District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 19, 2021

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … “In resolving the question of qualified immunity, a court must decide whether the alleged conduct was a violation of a constitutional right and whether the right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of defendant

Mele v. Christopher

7 F. Supp. 2d 419 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 7, 1998

of equal protection of privileges and immunities under the law, (4) that the conspirators committed some act in furtherance of the conspiracy, and (5) that the plaintiffs were injured.” … In order “to have a property interest in a benefit, a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire for it.” Bd. of Regents of State Colleges v.

National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. McDonald

978 F. Supp. 2d 215 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 26, 2013

The relief that Amtrak seeks is clearly retrospective. The first form of relief sought is a declaration that something that happened years ago is null and void, and so really did not happen at all. … No sovereign immunity issue was raised in New York, New Haven. But in Blanchette, the state officials argued, as the Commissioner does here, that they were immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment.