Case law

Okyere v. Palisades Collection, LLC

961 F. Supp. 2d 522 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 16, 2013

None of the cases cited by Moses, Moses Mem. at 6-9, contradict this, as they simply provide a broad discussion of governmental immunity unrelated to the facts in this case. … While Moses argues that “[n]o facts have been pleaded to defeat Marshal Moses’s qualified immunity,” Moses Mem. at 14-15, this is incorrect in light of Okyere’s allegations within the complaint regarding Moses’s receipt of

In Re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether Liability

674 F. Supp. 2d 494 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 8, 2009

This provision offers them immunity from claims that the additive is defective in design or manufacture. … Rutherford, 332 F.2d 444 (2d Cir.1964) ("As applied to the act of which appellant was found guilty, the act is clearly constitutional.

Trump

District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 9, 2025

He alleges that he has a “direct interest in ensuring that only constitutionally qualified candidates hold office.” (ECF 1 at 1.) … That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office, regardless of politics, policy, or party.”). any such threats.

Carter v. Akinyombo

District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 27, 2022

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 8 To assist in minimizing Plaintiff’s pain due to walking.

United States Ex Rel. Lee Kum Hoy v. Shaughnessy

115 F. Supp. 302 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 17, 1953

Relators would be clearly right if the administrative proceedings had been for deportation rather than exclusion. Kessler v. Strecker, 307 U.S. 22, 35 , 59 S.Ct. 694 , 83 L.Ed. 1082 . … Moreover, the qualified expert must not only be a capable immunologist but also be well versed in genetics.

Road Review League, Town of Bedford v. Boyd

270 F. Supp. 650 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 28, 1967

Upon the return of an order to show cause for that purpose on March 27, 1967, the State appeared and pleaded sovereign immunity. … It appears that in consideration of the open space needs of the county, the expenditure of an additional $4.8 million is rather clearly justified.”

Schomburg v. New York City Police Department

298 F.R.D. 138 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 13, 2014

The work product doctrine under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b) creates a qualified immunity from discovery for: (1) documents or tangible things, (2) prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial, (3) by or for a party or by or … “To obtain the core work product contained in the memorandum, plaintiffs must ... establish a highly persuasive showing of need.” Id., at 279-80 .

DARROE v. Staples, Inc.

243 F. Supp. 2d 5 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 7, 2003

The first step of the McDonnell Douglas analysis requires plaintiff to establish a prima facie case by showing that (1) he belongs to a protected class; (2) he suffered an adverse employment action; (3) he was qualified for … Prima Facie Case Here, Darboe clearly establishes three of the four prongs of a prima facie case: as an African American man he is a member of a “protected class”; his demotion from the position of lead salesman constitutes

United States v. Cole

325 F. Supp. 763 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 14, 1971

The defendants thus say that, “The decision to focus and intensify upon the income tax affairs of Marvin Cole was clearly the result of violations of Mr. … Each of the items of proof used to establish the tax evasion, perjury and conspiracy was accounted for as to source.

Gill-Drayton v. New York State Education Department

District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 20, 2025

“It is well established that [NYSED] is an agency of the State of New York, and thus an arm of the state for purposes of sovereign immunity.” D.J. by Comfort v. Corning-Painted Post Area Sch. Dist., 722 F. … “[I]t is [also] well established that Congress has not validly abrogated the states’ sovereign immunity for claims arising under Title I [of the ADA]” and that “New York [has not] waived its immunity.” Yerdon v.

Roland v. City of New York

District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 3, 2024

Whether the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity A. … Legal framework Qualified immunity protects government employees “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

United States v. Mozer

828 F. Supp. 208 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 29, 1993

Nor does it suggest that he is barred from calling SDNY Assistants as witnesses in his effort to establish such agreements. … In short, the Agreement is totally devoid of any support for the Government’s position; on its face, the Agreement clearly and unambiguously supports the defendant’s entitlement to proceed in the manner he described in his

VTT Vulcan Petroleum, S.A. v. Langham-Hill Petroleum, Inc.

684 F. Supp. 389 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 19, 1988

It is well established that a defendant is “found within the district,” in the context of this maritime Rule, only if the defendant “can be found within the district in terms of jurisdiction” and “can be found for service … In Seawind, the fact that the contract was made and allegedly breached in New York meant that the defendant “could clearly be made subject to suit in New York, even in the absence of a resident agent expressly authorized

NICHOLS-MORRIS CORPORATION v. Morris

174 F. Supp. 691 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 24, 1959

To suggest that one can, by disregard of his duty, immunize himself from fiduciary responsibility would undermine the strict code of trustee con *697 duct the Courts have steadfastly enforced. … No substantial damage has been established by plaintiff, but the defendant’s action requires the imposition of some damages, which are fixed at $1,000.

Williams v. Barometre

District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 28, 2022

Defendants also argue that Barometre is entitled to qualified immunity against such claims. (See id. 10–11.) … immunity.

United States v. Mount Sinai Hospital

185 F. Supp. 3d 383 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 4, 2016

The burden is on the party resisting discovery to establish the facts necessary to show that the privilege applies and that it has riot been waived." General Motors, 80 F.Supp.3d at 533 ; see also Denney v. … Relators argue that the timing of these notes is not sufficient to render them immune from discovery, because they “incorporate the subject-matter of the investigation” and therefore fall within the scope of defendants’ waiver

Freedman v. Barrow

427 F. Supp. 1129 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 4, 1976

It became essential to establish accruals and reserves for every known contingency or foreseeable event which, if omitted, might result in overstated income. … The 1973 Incentive Plan clearly stated in Section X that: “A qualified option, which was granted under a shareholder approved stock option plan and has neither been fully exercised nor lapsed, may be amended with the mutual

Messinger v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

126 F. Supp. 3d 376 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 28, 2015

Chase’s Consumer Banking Marketing Department generated a spreadsheet of all Chase customers who made qualifying deposits for the U.S. … At the first step, the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of dis *383 crimination by showing that (1) he was within the protected age group, (2) he was qualified for the position, (3) he suffered an adverse employment

Child v. Beame

412 F. Supp. 593 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 20, 1976

As to establishing the claimed right, the argument is twofold. … Thus, defendants seek to invoke, as to all the defendants, including the agency administrator defendants, the qualified “good faith” immunity from private actions for damages presently recognized for certain public officials

Murphy v. Spaulding

District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 1, 2022

immunity. … The Court will not opine on whether Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, however, because Plaintiff has not plausibly pled that Defendants violated his constitutional rights. See Posr v.