Case law

Ali v. Ramos

District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 30, 2020

“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 of which … Thus, “[e]ven where the plaintiff's federal rights and the scope of the official's permissible conduct are clearly established, the qualified immunity defense protects a government actor if it was ‘objectively reasonable

Joseph v. Ulster County Community Action Committee Inc.

475 F. Supp. 944 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 23, 1979

Even assuming arguendo that plaintiff could establish a claim for damages in the necessary jurisdictional amount, and recognizing that a cause of action and damages remedy can be implied directly under the Constitution, Davis … more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified

Gay Men's Health Crisis v. Sullivan

733 F. Supp. 619 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 14, 1989

Therefore, this element is also satisfied, and plaintiffs’ standing is established. *631 Because at least some of the organizational plaintiffs have alleged facts sufficient to establish standing, we need not consider the … Vagueness doctrine clearly can be applied to government subsidies of speech. In Planned Parenthood of Central and Northern Arizona v.

Chisolm v. Kidder, Peabody Asset Management, Inc.

966 F. Supp. 218 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 29, 1997

The error must have been obvious and capable of being readily and instantly perceived by the average person qualified to serve as an arbitrator. … Jaros, 70 F.3d 418, 421 (6th Cir.1995) (holding that the two elements needed to establish manifest disregard are: “(1) the applicable legal principle is clearly defined and not subject to reasonable debate; and (2) the arbitrators

Gonzalez v. City of New York

354 F. Supp. 2d 327 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 18, 2005

In fact, Plaintiffs’ Memo, does not clearly allege any retaliatory act against Rivera or Palermo. … In his deposition, Rivera described his retaliation claim more clearly.

Thorpe v. City of New York

District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 25, 2021

A law enforcement officer is entitled to qualified immunity where his actions do not violate any clearly established constitutional rights. Plumhoff v. Rickard, 134 8. … In order 16 to establish an entitlement to qualified immunity, “the officer must adduce sufficient facts that no reasonable jury, looking at the evidence in the light most favorable

Cambisaca v. Ruhe

District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 3, 2019

Qualified Immunity Defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity, but expend little effort arguing this point. … “Qualified immunity shields police officers acting in their official capacity from suits for damages . . . unless their actions violate clearly-established rights of which an objectively reasonable official would have known

Foley v. Connelie

419 F. Supp. 889 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 8, 1976

On the contrary, this country has in practice considered resident aliens not only to be qualified but obligated to perform analogous duties in our armed services. … The “diplomatic protection” involved is merely a foreign consulate’s inquiry into a situation involving one of its nationals, not the immunity from prosecution reserved for accredited diplomats.

Ziering v. New York City Department of Health

621 F. Supp. 679 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 19, 1985

See Fed.R.Evid. 803(6) (business records exception to hearsay rule requires "testimony of the custodian or other qualified witness”). … Plaintiffs counsel clearly should have known that these articles are hearsay. .

Jones v. Schneiderman

974 F. Supp. 2d 322 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 30, 2013

Professional MMA Matches and Exhibitions Are Not Protected By the First Amendment Live-performance, professional MMA qualifies as expressive conduct only if Plaintiffs establish that MMA is “sufficiently imbued with the elements … Live MMA is Not Inherently Expressive Distinct from the established two-part test for determining whether conduct qualifies for First Amendment protection, Plaintiffs argue that although “the mere act of doing MMA is not

Hirschfeld v. Stone

193 F.R.D. 175 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 9, 2000

Standard for Class Certification Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 establishes two prerequisites for class actions. … An unconsenting state is immune from suits in federal court brought by its own citizens, see Edelman v.

Caldwell v. Officer German Geronimo

District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 27, 2021

Qualified Immunity Defendant argues, in the alternative, that he is entitled to qualified immunity because “it is not clearly established that taking a resisting and non- compliant … Consequently, the Court declines to grant Defendant summary judgment based on a qualified immunity defense.

Levin v. Harleston

770 F. Supp. 895 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 4, 1991

The Defense of Qualified Immunity Is not Available. The defendants stated in the Pretrial Order, 111, that they intended to assert the defense of qualified immunity. … We have found such retaliation here, and accordingly, the qualified immunity defense is not available to these defendants.

Moriani v. Hunter

462 F. Supp. 353 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 21, 1978

Judge Hand acknowledged that § 1985(3) applied in terms to “any person” and did not contain § 1983’s qualifying phrase “acting under color of state law.” … The Court wrote: An element of the cause of action established by the first section, now 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , is that the deprivation complained of must have been inflicted under color of state law.

City of New York v. Permanent Mission of India to the United Nations

533 F. Supp. 2d 457 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 8, 2008

India and Mongolia then moved to dismiss on the ground that they were immune from this Court’s jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (“FSIA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1602 et seq. … While New York courts are not wholly immune to such legerdemain, see Ass’n of the Bar v.

United States v. Camacho

188 F. Supp. 2d 429 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 13, 2002

Rather, it must be “clearly corroborated” by some other evidence. That standard is satisfied. … At a new trial the defendants could avoid that pitfall by not trying to establish alibis.

Torres v. NYC Police Department

District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 18, 2020

As a final point regarding the individual City Defendants, Judge Fox found that they would nonetheless be entitled to qualified immunity “because their conduct on September 28, 2015 and April 28, 2016, did not violate clearly … established statutory or constitutional rights that Torres possessed.”

Ed Ex Rel. Vd v. Tuffarelli

692 F. Supp. 2d 347 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 2, 2010

Defendants move to dismiss the federal claims on the grounds that interlocutory rulings of the Family Court bar this action pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, and that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … The individual defendants argue that summary judgment should be granted in their favor because they are shielded from suit on grounds of qualified immunity.

Powell v. Ward

487 F. Supp. 917 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 27, 1980

Although defendant is entitled to the qualified immunity accorded officials in Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232 , 94 S.Ct. 1683 , 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974) and Wood v. … Strickland, 420 U.S. 308 , 95 S.Ct. 992 , 43 L.Ed.2d 214 (1975), the immunity defense is unavailing here, where “the constitutional right allegedly infringed was clearly established at the time of [her] challenged conduct

Miglab Travaux et Services v. United States of America and International Armoring Corporation

District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 28, 2026

In any event, permitting discovery to establish jurisdiction under Section 301 would be futile. … Therefore, Section § 305(c)(4) also fails to qualify as a “civil forfeiture statute” under CAFRA.