Case law

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.”

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).

United States v. Deandrade

633 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 1, 2008

In general, Ninth Circuit precedent remains persuasive authority in determining what is clearly established federal law. … This argument is clearly merit-less — the government is permitted to establish the quantity of drugs at issue based on testimony from the witnesses at trial. United States v.

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 .

Maxwell v. City of New York

272 F. Supp. 2d 285 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 11, 2003

Moreover, Mannuzza is protected from liability in this case by the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields police officers from being subject to personal liability for damages for conduct that “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Roberts v. Internal Revenue Service

468 F. Supp. 2d 644 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 28, 2006

Roberts does not clearly specify the cause of action he is claiming against NFS, and he does not ask for any type of relief from NFS. … Specifically, they contend that Congress has not waived sovereign immunity to allow Roberts’s claims.

Liverpool v. Davis

District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 26, 2020

To begin, the Court acknowledges that the Supreme Court has “lately emphasized the breadth of qualified immunity protection,” particularly with regard to the clearly established prong. Francis v. … established right in failing to protect Plaintiff.12 A second body of case law forecloses qualified immunity in this case: the Eighth Amendment’s clearly established protections against unsanitary 12 The

DeClara v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

748 F. Supp. 92 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 29, 1990

DeClara invokes two exceptions to establish subject matter jurisdiction. … Finally, the complaint is devoid of allegations of Constantine’s individual misconduct and sets forth no facts to overcome Constantine's qualified immunity from money damages. See Anderson v.

Williams v. Sclafani

444 F. Supp. 906 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 24, 1978

That is not to say, however, that Briscoe is inapposite and the City Board’s conduct immune from attack. … The right to vote has clearly been infringed.

Fordham Bus Corporation v. United States

41 F. Supp. 712 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 23, 1941

The tariffs are to be filed “in such manner and form” and are to contain “such information” as the Commission prescribes, which clearly allows leeway for meeting unusual situations. … A common carrier whose route does not meet other common carriers, for example, could not meet the requirement, yet it would not be immune from regulation in •other respects as a common carrier.

Prisco v. State of NY

902 F. Supp. 400 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 11, 1995

Whether or not state defendants qualify as operators of the Prisco site is a genuine issue of material fact to be determined at trial. … The eleventh amendment bars a suit for damages against state officers in their official capacity, absent a waiver by the state or Congressional abrogation of the state’s immunity. Edelman v.

National Basketball Ass'n v. Williams

857 F. Supp. 1069 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 18, 1994

In that letter, the NBPA again threatened that the NBA’s continuation of the employment conditions at issue would be “subject to scrutiny under the antitrust laws and ... are clearly in violation of those laws.” … Thus, the test that Bridgeman established was that antitrust immunity survives only as long as the employer continues to impose the restrictions unchanged, and reasonably believes that the challenged practice or a close variant

Chidume v. GreenBurgh-North Castle Union Free School District

District Court, S.D. New York · May 4, 2020

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects officials from liability for civil damages when, “(a) the defendant's action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to … 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.

Weinraub v. Glen Rauch Securities, Inc.

419 F. Supp. 2d 507 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 9, 2005

See 8/15/05 Letter from Reicher to Alan Weinraub at 2 (providing plaintiff with several cases establishing that arbitral immunity precludes the breach of contract claim added by the Amended Complaint). 58 . … Plaintiff erroneously asserts that arbitral immunity is only granted to brokers, and that it would be "an unfortunate situation” if arbitrators enjoyed immunity. PL Arbitrators' Dismissal Opp. at 2, 4. 59 .

Export-Import Bank of the United States v. Asia Pulp & Paper Co.

232 F.R.D. 103 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 8, 2005

To qualify for the privilege, the government must show that the document to be protected is both “predecisional” and “deliberative,” Grand Central Partnership, Inc. v. … Courts apply estoppel against the government only in those limited circumstances where the defendant can establish government misconduct. Shalala, 34 F.3d at 1168.

Santiago v. New York State Department of Correctional Services

725 F. Supp. 780 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 29, 1989

Br. at 1 n. 1, and has made no attempt to establish that in 1871 Congress intended to define “persons” in Section 1985 differently than it had that same year in Section 1983. … The first occurs when a congressional enactment clearly intends to hold states liable for damages. See Pennsylvania v. Union Gas Co., — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 2273, 2281 , 105 L.Ed.2d 1 (1989) (plurality); Fitzpatrick v.

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.

Tom Lange Co. v. Kornblum & Co. (In Re Kornblum & Co.)

177 B.R. 187 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 31, 1995

In this case, the Units were acquired in May 1986, approximately three years prior to Lange becoming a qualified claimant and approximately five years prior to Finks becoming a qualified claimant. Joint St. ¶ 5, Exh. 1. … It is well-established that PACA trust assets do not constitute property of the bankruptcy estate.

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.

Jones v. State of New York

District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 24, 2019

Qualified Immunity Protects Officers Who Had Arguable Probable Cause Qualified immunity “protects government officials from suit if ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … The qualified immunity analysis asks whether (1) a plaintiff has sufficiently pled the violation of a constitutional or statutory right, (2) that right was “clearly established,” and (3) it was “objectively reasonable”