Case law

Kiernan v. Lindsay

334 F. Supp. 588 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 24, 1971

. § 1343 (3), which confers original jurisdiction on the district courts over cases involving a deprivation of the privileges and immunities protected in 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . … We believe that this is clearly not a case involving personal liberty within § 1343(3).

City of New York v. Exxon Corp.

744 F. Supp. 474 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 6, 1990

For example, Alcan quotes an EPA ruling as establishing a mean concentration of 3.5 ppm of lead in “Fuel Oil No. 6.” Id. … Clearly, though Congress intended to exclude oil spills from the coverage of CERCLA, Congress did not intend to exclude waste oils such as Al-can’s, which are by no means strictly “crude oil or any fraction thereof.”

Ortiz v. IOD Inc.

District Court, S.D. New York · May 7, 2019

By enacting the price-per-page provision, the Legislature clearly intended to control patient costs associated with access to medical records. … Although Sections 18(11) and (12) do not provide immunity for overcharges in violation of § 18(2)(e), see Spiro v. Healthport Tech., 73 F.

Padgett v. Dapelo

791 F. Supp. 438 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 4, 1992

Moreover, to vacate an award under the manifest disregard standard, the court must find that although the arbitrators were aware of a clearly governing legal principle they consciously decided to ignore it. … Drexel & Co., 479 F.2d 1277, 1299 (2d Cir.1973), the Court established a two-part test for control person liability under § 20(a).

McAllan v. Von Essen

517 F. Supp. 2d 672 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 26, 2007

Plaintiff argues that further discovery will establish the basis for defendants’ alleged retaliatory animus towards him. … Accordingly, the Report correctly assumes that plaintiffs comments on these issues qualify as constitutionally protected speech. (See Report 19.)

United States v. Ottley

439 F. Supp. 587 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 31, 1977

However it seems to us that the two duties are clearly related, and that the “unit of prosecution” for the ongoing obligation to keep records should be the fiscal year to which they relate. 2 Since the Union’s fiscal year … In such a situation a defendant should not be given immunity for criminal conduct committed after the indictment had been filed. United States v. Moss (2d Cir. 1977), 562 F.2d 155 at 160 . See also United States v.

Tasini v. New York Times Co.

981 F. Supp. 841 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 29, 1997

This is generally enough to qualify a work as “any revision” of a particular collective work for purposes of Section 201(c), and it is enough also to qualify two works as substantially similar for other purposes at copyright … By failing to take this into account, Section 201(c) speaks directly only to those situations in which there is either no express transfer — in which case the privileges apply — or an express transfer clearly broad enough

Davidson v. Lee

District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 1, 2021

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability for civil damages if either (1) the “official’s conduct does not violate clearly established … Qualified immunity entitles public officials to “an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability . . . . [I]t is effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial.” Mitchell v.

Collens v. City of New York

222 F.R.D. 249 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 12, 2004

The Objections should be sustained only if the Magistrate Judge’s ruling was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. … An order is “clearly erroneous” when “the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Surles v.

Kuhbier v. McCartney, Verrino & Rosenberry Vested Producer Plan

239 F. Supp. 3d 710 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 8, 2017

Defendants argue: The evidence clearly establishes that Kuhbier was not performing in accordance with the production goals set forth in the [2009] Agreement. … Defendants have thus not established that, as a matter of law, Plaintiff is not entitled to benefits under the Vested Producer Plan.

Kellman v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

8 F. Supp. 3d 351 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 26, 2014

Plaintiff, who does not argue that she was more qualified for the position than Jordan, argues that she was more qualified than the other interviewees, all Caucasian men, and points out that Conner’s interview notes include … Plaintiff argues that she was more qualified for the position than Roderick and Johnston.

United States v. Oakford Corp.

79 F. Supp. 2d 357 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 14, 1999

testimony from four coconspirators who had previously pleaded guilty pursuant to “cooperation” agreements with the Government (Christine Beyer, Michael Frayler, Richard Har-man, and Angelo Meneghello) as well as from an immunized … Rather, the evidence clearly and convincingly shows that, within a few broad and nebulous parameters largely established at *362 the outset of the conspiracy, see tr. 10/20/99 at 76-78, 99-100,177, 203-204; tr. 10/21/99 at

LVL XIII Brands, Inc. v. Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A.

209 F. Supp. 3d 612 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 13, 2016

It is well established that even if “a witness qualifies as an expert with respect to certain matters or areas of knowledge, it by no means follows that he or she is qualified to express expert opinions as to other fields … That is clearly not the case here.

United States v. Chalmers

474 F. Supp. 2d 555 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 22, 2007

Resolution 986 (“Resolution 986”), which created the Oil-for-Food Program, and the Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of Iraq and the U.N. implementing the Program clearly establish the property interest held … Application Wyatt fails to establish the elements of a selective prosecution claim.

Zurich American Insurance Co. v. Harleysville Insurance Co.

194 F. Supp. 3d 253 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 7, 2016

Similarly, in this action, the record establishes that the underlying incident arose out of Spray-On’s ongoing operations performed for Seiame. … The general rule of ratable contribution is inapplicable, however, if it would effectively deny and clearly distort the plain meaning of the terms of the policies. U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. Fed. Ins.

Walker v. United States

116 F.R.D. 149 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 12, 1987

Since the FTCA constitutes a limited waiver of sovereign immunity, courts have no power to exceed the limits established by Congress. … The equitable relief requested by the plaintiff clearly is not, and his request for ex-pungement under his third cause of action should therefore be stricken.

Brown v. Venettozi

District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 1, 2021

immunity, (id. at 18–20). … Mem. 18–20), they merely recite the qualified immunity case law without meaningfully applying it to the facts of the case.

William A. Gross Construction Associates, Inc. v. American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance

262 F.R.D. 354 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 2, 2009

Burden of Proof The party claiming work product protection has the burden of establishing that it applies. … has the burden of establishing nonwaiver.”

Jou-Jou Designs, Inc. v. International Ladies Garment Workers Union

490 F. Supp. 1376 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 12, 1980

The Court held in Connell that, in the circumstances of the case, the union was not immune from federal antitrust statutes. … Jou-Jou correctly cites Connell for the proposition that the labor law exemptions do not confer a blanket antitrust immunity.

Williams v. Bowen

660 F. Supp. 192 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 29, 1987

In evaluating Williams’ disability application, the AU found that although the medical evidence in the record established the existence of a right knee condition on or before established the existence of a right knee condition … Her counsel clearly presented the argument that Williams need not meet or equal the listing in order to qualify for disability benefits if other evidence demonstrated that she could not perform any gainful activity.