Case law

Sassower v. City of White Plains

742 F. Supp. 157 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 27, 1990

The Court reasoned that a County may not lawfully establish policy regarding “how the district attorney should prosecute violations of state penal laws,” Id., and therefore the' Onondaga County District Attorney’s prosecutorial … his prosecutorial duties properly, the plaintiff in the instant action is seeking to hold the County liable for what she alleges is a policy and practice by the County of using the District Attorney to accomplish a goal clearly

Mark v. Mount Sinai Hospital

85 F. Supp. 2d 252 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 18, 2000

The legal standard *259 for discrimination under both title VII and the ADEA has been clearly established since McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 , 93 S.Ct. 1817 , 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). … Clearly engaging in Medicaid fraud would constitute a breach of professional ethics and might breach an employment contract.

Ingram v. Madison Square Garden Center, Inc.

535 F. Supp. 1082 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 23, 1982

The Court explained that class members could demonstrate that they are actual victims by proving a desire for referral as a laborer which was expressed to Local 3 or, alternatively, by proving that they were qualified for … It is a frequent occurrence, especially in class action litigation, that settling defendants pay less in damages than those who pursue to the bitter end cases such as this one, in which liability is clearly established.

MG Refining & Marketing, Inc. v. Knight Enterprises, Inc.

25 F. Supp. 2d 175 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 26, 1998

Thus, to see if a contract qualifies as a legal forward contract, courts must examine its underlying purposes, even when the contract’s provisions seem to qualify it for an exemption under the language of § 2(a)(1). … Although a 1982 determination by the United States Department of Commerce clearly established that these radio parts were exportable to almost any country, the government later prohibited the sale of anything it considered

Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. My Other Bag, Inc.

156 F. Supp. 3d 425 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 6, 2016

-to clearly and unmis *433 takably distinguish one source through unauthorized use.” Hormel Foods Corp. v. … In arguing otherwise, Louis Vuitton takes too narrow a view of what can qualify as a parody.

Pasha

District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 25, 2026

. § 1983 claims against the DOH on the grounds of sovereign immunity). … The parties do not dispute that Pasha is a member of a protected class, nor that he was otherwise qualified for his position. Doc. 238 at 20. !

Paterson, Zochonis (U.K.) Ltd. v. Compania United Arrows, S.A.

493 F. Supp. 626 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 21, 1980

The burden of establishing non-enforcement is on plaintiffs, and plaintiffs here postulate a straightforward commercial transaction between themselves and Mitsui’s “agent”. … In a previous motion, however, Mitsui clearly represented to the Court that it had, in fact, executed such a waiver and the Court now assumes that this is the case. 18 .

United States v. Davis

36 Cont. Cas. Fed. 75,880 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 6, 1990

Bache Halsey Stuart Shields, Inc., 738 F.2d 1336, 1341-42 (D.C.Cir.1984) (law enforcement privilege is a qualified privilege); Fed.R. Civ.P. 26(b)(3) (work product privilege is a qualified privilege). … Rule 37 Mem. at 7, General Dynamics argues that these “procurement audit materials,” 39 documents in all, are immune from disclosure.

In Re Grand Jury Investigation

414 F. Supp. 74 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 3, 1976

The SEC has clearly failed to show the requisite “particularized need” for Mr. *77 Epley’s testimony before the grand jury. … Thus, the SEC could not possibly establish any “particularized need” which would justify disclosure of the grand jury transcripts.

Vett v. City Of New York

District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 7, 2023

Plaintiff asserts that Defendants cannot claim qualified immunity on the basis of arguable probable cause, because “there was no potential operable firearm anywhere in sight” at the time of his arrest. … But these arguments against qualified immunity do not address “arguable probable cause.” See supra., pp. 29-30.

In re Barrick Gold Securities Litigation

314 F.R.D. 91 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 23, 2016

Similarly, typicality is established because all class members’ claims arise from the same course of events and involve similar arguments on liability. … Rule 23(b)(3)’s superiority requirement is clearly satisfied in this case — a finding that defendants do not dispute.

Rockland Exposition, Inc. v. Alliance of Automotive Service Providers

894 F. Supp. 2d 288 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 11, 2012

Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763, 768 , 112 S.Ct. 2753 , 120 L.Ed.2d 615 (1992) (noting that it “is common ground that § 43(a) protects qualifying unregistered trademarks”). 11 “[W]here a plaintiff cannot establish that its … The record is devoid of evidence suggesting that Defendants engaged in any conduct “for the sole purpose of inflicting intentional harm” on REI, and furthermore clearly establishes that AASP was motivated by its own economic

Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corp. v. Public Utility District No. 2 of Grant County

237 F. Supp. 985 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 3, 1965

under the doctrine of governmental immunity, or, .alternatively, are trust funds and therefore not properly subject to attachment. … Here, Bankers Trust, however, has clearly defined administrative duties.

Kelly v. American Federation of Musicians' & Employers' Pension Welfare Fund

602 F. Supp. 22 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 3, 1985

It is apparent that the third and fifth elements articulated in Said are unsupported by the facts and cannot be established. … However, his testimony at his deposition clearly indicates that these other employees he is referring to included whites, Hispanics, and blacks. Tr. at 77-81, 95-97.

Cruz v. The Village of Spring Valley

District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 11, 2022

performs the investigative functions normally performed by a detective or police officer, he is eligible only for qualified immunity.” (citations and quotation marks omitted)). … County of Oneida, 375 F.3d 206, 226–27 (2d Cir. 2004) (describing methods of establishing Monell liability).

Ashmore v. CGI Group Inc.

138 F. Supp. 3d 329 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 23, 2015

Non-Retaliatory Rationale Even if Plaintiff establishes a prima fade case of retaliation, Defendants are enti- *346 tied to summary judgment if they show “there is no genuine dispute that the record clearly and convincingly … establishes that Plaintiff was terminated for performance issues unrelated to his protected activity.

Nakash v. United States Department of Justice

708 F. Supp. 1354 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 30, 1988

Therefore, plaintiffs allegations establish a violation of subsection (b), the anti-disclosure provision. … Therefore, even if it had assumed that it had the power to do so, the Justice Department did not enact regulations that would immunize it from this lawsuit. II.

Ganesh

District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 10, 2025

In addition to being immune from actions for damages, federal judges are also immune from any civil action seeking injunctive or declaratory relief. … For these reasons, he has not established that complete diversity exists between him and the individuals he seeks to sue.

Christiana v. Metropolitan Life Insurance

839 F. Supp. 248 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 13, 1993

3) positions established without a formal job evaluation. … Documents dating from the time Employee C moved into the Fraud Unit clearly indicate that his position was established for purposes of retaining him pursuant to company policy and that the position was designated “for present

United States v. Abrams

539 F. Supp. 378 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 13, 1982

The use of the qualifying phrase “which are contraband, fruits and instrumentalities or evidence” of the violations specified, moreover adequately particularized the item to be seized. … In this case, defendant Gold has clearly failed to meet the requirement of establishing a particularized need.