Case law

Butler v. New York State Department of Law

998 F. Supp. 336 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 25, 1998

Vacco and his Deputies were entitled to qualified immunity for their decision to discharge the employees. The holding in Danahy is decisive on the issue of Ms. … Alternatively, defendants Vaeco and Flynn individually are entitled to dismissal on the ground of qualified immunity, as this case is indistinguishable from Danahy .

Liverpool v. The City of New York

District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 15, 2023

qualified immunity. … objectively legally reasonable in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.

Epstein v. Kalvin-Miller International, Inc.

100 F. Supp. 2d 222 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 21, 2000

Weisenseel’s use of the word “other” clearly sheds light on the words that precede it. … Here, the Court finds that plaintiff is clearly disabled within the meaning of the NYHRL.

Legal Aid Society v. City of New York

114 F. Supp. 2d 204 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 18, 2000

In addition, Legal Aid’s First Amendment right against government retaliation was not clearly established until after the signing of the agreement in February 1995. … Doran, 974 F.Supp. 276, 280-81 (S.D.N.Y.1997) (defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on the grounds that this point was not clearly established prior to Umbehr), aff'd mem., 152 F.3d 918 , 1998 WL 385779 (2d Cir.1998

Bruker v. City of New York

337 F. Supp. 2d 539 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 29, 2004

Dolores Perry Perry argues that the doctrine of qualified immunity shields her from any liability in this case. … Qualified immunity *559 protects government officials from suits for civil damages for performing discretionary functions “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of

Sun Enterprises., Ltd. v. Train

394 F. Supp. 211 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 9, 1975

Although the federal defendants have hot moved for summary judgment, the undisputed facts establish their entitlement to it. … As with the state defendants, plaintiffs’ allegations against the town defendants are insufficient to establish federal jurisdiction.

Shapnik v. The Hebrew Home for the Aged at Riverdale

District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 26, 2021

Congress establishes the jurisdiction of the federal courts. U.S. Const. Art. III, § 1. Only Congress may establish a federal cause of action. See Alexander v. … Miller, 818 F.3d 49, 63 (2d Cir. 2016) (“Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that may be waived if . . . the defendants failed to move for summary judgment on this defense, even if . . .

Banco De Espana v. Federal Reserve Bank

28 F. Supp. 958 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 14, 1939

If this Court had jurisdiction of the action, 1 would have granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the ground that it is clearly established that title to and right to the possession of the silver are in the Government … This change is clearly established by the contracts for the second and third lots of silver and by the new form of ministerial orders issued in respect to the loan of said silver by the Bank of Spain to the Ministry of Finance

S.E. Satisfy v. BlueStar Alliance, LLC

District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 11, 2025

privilege, doctrine, right, or immunity. … If information subject to a claim of attorney-client privilege, work product immunity, or other privilege, doctrine, right, or immunity is nevertheless inadvertently or unintentionally produced, such production shall in

Morpurgo v. Bd. of Higher Ed. in City of New York

423 F. Supp. 704 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 18, 1976

It has long been established that the United States, a sovereign entity, is immune from suit unless it consents to be sued. 20 Contrary to plaintiff’s belief, the declaratory judgment act 21 does not constitute a consent … Plaintiff requests relief from the United States and various of its officers that they are clearly not duty-bound to provide her; to the extent the relief requested lies within the discretion of such officers, section 1361

Selzer v. Board of Education

112 F.R.D. 176 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 19, 1986

Jawin and the five proposed class members is sufficient to establish the existence of a class as to whom there are common questions of law and fact and the typicality of the named plaintiffs’ claims. II. … Clearly they have an interest in eradicating the alleged discriminatory selection procedures for the position of principal. D.

Franco v. Costello

322 F. Supp. 2d 474 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 21, 2004

In the circumstances of this case, this Court does not regard the state court’s determination to have been an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. II. … Hence, this Court is unwilling to find that the state court’s determination was an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law in the circumstances here. III.

Koninklijke Philips Electronics N v. v. Cinram International, Inc.

709 F. Supp. 2d 259 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 4, 2010

However, later in the prosecution, after the Examiner rejected the application yet again (on grounds of indefiniteness), Philips’ new attorney argued that [applicant does not see how one can state more clearly that the “optical … Defendants state that the term requiring construction is simply "non-transmissive” without the additional qualifying language supplied by Philips. 8 .

Doe v. Pataki

427 F. Supp. 2d 398 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 12, 2006

Clearly, the parties wanted a “judicially sanctioned change in the[ir] legal relationship.” Buckhannon, 532 U.S. at 605 , 121 S.Ct. 1835 . … State Immunity Defendants’ state immunity argument fails, for it rests on a case that is no longer good law.

Taylor v. Microgenics Corporation

District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 9, 2023

Applicable Law Qualified immunity shields government officials whose “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … “A qualified immunity defense is established if (a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe that his action did not violate such

Kraemer-Katz v. United States Public Health Service

872 F. Supp. 1235 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 13, 1994

The APA constitutes a waiver of sovereign immunity with respect to equitable relief but not damages where a violation of federal law supporting relief under the Act can be shown. Alabama v. … Nor is there any evidence of reckless disregard of constitutional or statutory rights which would justify consideration of individual liability or which could survive qualified immunity. 7 VII Under regulations applicable

Colbourne

District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 23, 2026

Qualified Immunity Defendant argues that she should be afforded protection by qualified immunity. … The qualified immunity doctrine protects federal and state officials from suit for acts undertaken in their official capacity if “(1) their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights, or (2) it

Bolden v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.

765 F. Supp. 830 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 4, 1991

It must establish that there is a “genuine issue for trial.” Id. at 587 , 106 S.Ct. at 1356. … In support of their claim of a qualified privilege, defendants assert that defendant Blair's communication with Mr.

Wagner v. Barrick Gold Corp.

251 F.R.D. 112 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 15, 2008

“[I]t is well established that in complex actions such as securities actions, a plaintiff need not have expert knowledge of all aspects of the case to qualify as a class representative, and a great deal of reliance on the … [and] there clearly was a loss associated with those events.” (Schmid Decl., Ex. 16 (“Hakala Dep.”) at 77:23 to 78:2; see also Hakala Decl. 15-16.) Defendants’ own expert, Dr.

Moldawsky v. Lindsay

341 F. Supp. 1393 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 3, 1972

It provides a basis for jurisdiction only where the right or immunity alleged to have been injured is “one of personal liberty, not dependent for its existence upon the infringement of property rights.” Eisen v. … Plaintiff’s position is a political one; according to the relevant statute, he clearly serves at the pleasure of the Mayor. N.Y.Civ.Ct. Act § 1601, supra.