Case law

Berns v. Civil Service Commission

417 F. Supp. 17 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 17, 1975

Thereafter, on November 6, 1974, plaintiff was notified that she was found not to be qualified for her position by reason of her failure to meet the educational requirement. … The state civil service department and municipal commissions may refuse to examine an applicant, or after examination to certify an eligible “(a) who is found to lack any of the established requirements for admission to the

Lapham v. United States

93 F. Supp. 276 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 17, 1950

Durabb, was qualified by training, experience and license. … What is not, is clearly established by uncontradicted evidence. The charge of negligence is based on the testimony of Captain Ash, called as an expert by libelant.

Harris v. JOINT PLUMBING INDUSTRY BD., ETC.

474 F. Supp. 1284 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 3, 1979

Harris was denied pension benefits in August 1972 on the basis of his failure to qualify under the eligibility rules of the Fund as amended in 1966 and 1971. … Except for a one-year break in service in 1961, he worked for contributory employers from the time the Fund was established.

Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hughes

308 F. Supp. 679 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 23, 1969

Many of the findings are clearly established by the admissions inherent in the default. … The refusal to make such findings was not clearly erroneous.

Garlick v. Miller

District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 2, 2020

“[I]t is not an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law for a state court to decline to apply a specific legal rule that has not been squarely established by this Court.” Knowles v. … The First Department unreasonably applied clearly established law when it affirmed Garlick’s conviction.

Alcan Aluminium Ltd. v. FRANCHISE TAX, ETC.

539 F. Supp. 512 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 20, 1982

Alcancorp is a New York corporation, qualified to do business in California, with its principal place of business in Ohio. 2 . … Apparently, the plaintiff has intentionally brought suit against certain local FTB employees, instead of the FTB board members, to establish venue in New York.

Communist Party, USA v. Moysey

141 F. Supp. 332 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 23, 1956

Obviously such immunity in the past does not demonstrate a reason for continued freedom from taxation in the present or future. (3) The plaintiff claims the acts of the defendant by precluding the receipt of dues and gifts … From this hardship, unless some plain and unquestioned invalidity, clearly and reasonably demonstrated, appears by the papers on which this motion is brought, this Court has no power to relieve. .

Board of Education v. Califano

507 F. Supp. 827 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 11, 1981

The court, affirming the district court’s decision to vacate a partial summary judgment, reviewed the principles applicable to a determination whether a seniority system is “bona fide:” “Section 703(h) of the Act immunized … The separate qualifying tests given to male and female candidates to teach physical education rated the different capabilities required for the separate programs.

Glozman v. Retail, Wholesale & Chain Store Food Employees Union, Local 338

204 F. Supp. 2d 615 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 23, 2002

He clearly bore some responsibility for his termination as it was triggered by shortcomings on his part. … It should be noted that plaintiff's inability to establish a disability within the meaning of the ADA does not foreclose him from establishing a disability under the NYHRL as the definition of disability under the NYHRL is

Ntsebeza v. Daimler AG

624 F. Supp. 2d 336 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 27, 2009

If defendants’ argument that courts are required to defer to the Governments’ views without conducting any independent analysis were correct, this issue would clearly involve a controlling issue of law. … Alvarez-Machain cited only one case, which concerned deference to the Executive Branch under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act ("FSIA”).

Betances v. Fischer

District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 23, 2023

Supp.2d 379 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (denying Defendants’ motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity in both this class action and a related action with individual plaintiffs), aff’d sub nom, Betances v. Fischer, 519 F. … established that the practice was unconstitutional.”

Clarke v. Parkinson

225 F. Supp. 2d 345 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 23, 2002

However, I cannot conclude that these amounts should qualify as “unrecovered actual costs incurred in the Case.” … I therefore con-elude that the interest payments on loans similar to the one at issue in this case do not qualify as “costs incurred in the Case.”

Lopez v. Ward

719 F. Supp. 261 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 13, 1989

In rejecting this argument, I note first that Kingston’s testimony is taken out of context, since she immediately qualified the observation by stating that the aforementioned conditions were just “some examples” of emergencies … The affidavit clearly skirts any accusation that Kingston failed to act in response to his complaints. 2 .

Demetriades v. Kaufmann

690 F. Supp. 289 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 3, 1988

That registration, however, is not immune to substantive challenge. … Resolution of the innocent/willful issue clearly would bear on the amount of statutory damages available under 17 U.S.C. § 504 (c).

United States v. Cortes

697 F. Supp. 1305 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 7, 1988

Clearly, the constitutional attack on the Sentencing Guidelines presents a purely legal issue that can be resolved with no further factual development. … Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 707 , 94 S.Ct. 3090, 3107 , 41 L.Ed.2d 1039 (1974) (held that the separation of powers did not support absolute Presidential immunity from judicial process because such immunity would conflict with the

Application of Prudential Securities Inc.

795 F. Supp. 657 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 30, 1992

In order for a claim to arise under federal law, “a right or immunity created by the Constitution or laws of the United States must be an element, and an essential one, of the plaintiff’s cause of action”. Gully v. … Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447 (c), federal courts may award costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees, when the removing party has acted in “bad faith” or removal is predicated upon a diversity of citizenship that clearly

Vega v. Fox

457 F. Supp. 2d 172 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 21, 2006

Under Color of Law Aichhorn Defendants have attempted to narrow the state action inquiry by asserting that they had no licensing, monetary, or supervisory relationship with the City of New York. 86 But Aichhorn clearly does … Fox, Green, and Washington were clearly acting in the scope of their employment by supervising and leading a weekly meeting of YASL residents.

In re Gurinsky

105 F. Supp. 42 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 19, 1951

They are not clearly erroneous. There is no basis upon which this Court should override his decision. … Certainly the Trustee could offer in evidence other entries in-the same -books to qualify o.r explain away the inferences which the respondent sought to create.

Newton v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N. A.

436 F. Supp. 806 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 18, 1977

It is well established that a cause of action predicated upon federal question jurisdiction must arise directly under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States and “facts must be alleged to show that federal … A right or immunity created by Federal law must be an essential element of the claim in order to satisfy the jurisdictional prerequisite under this section. Gully v.

Republic of Iraq v. ABB AG

920 F. Supp. 2d 517 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 6, 2013

The ethicality, illegitimacy, or illegality of the acts does not immunize the Republic of Iraq from responsibility. … Therefore, the defense should not be allowed “[u]nless the degrees of fault are essentially indistinguishable or the plaintiffs responsibility is clearly greater.” Pinter v.