Case law

Diduck v. Kaszycki & Sons Contractors, Inc.

149 F.R.D. 55 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 15, 1993

Clearly, the Applicants’ claims and the instant action have common questions of law and fact. Indeed, the intervenor’s claims raise identical questions of law and fact to those currently before the Court. … R.Civ.P. 24(a) provide guidance in this motion: A class member who claims that his "representative" does not adequately represent him, and is able to establish that proposition with sufficient probability, should not be put

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.

Cook Chocolate Co. v. Salomon Inc.

748 F. Supp. 122 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 26, 1990

In fact, despite Cook’s hopeful characterization, the Hunt case clearly supports the arbitrators’ actions in this case: “The order of proof clearly was within [the arbitrators’] discretion.... … The error must have been obvious and capable of being readily and instantly perceived by the average person qualified to serve as an arbitrator.

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.

Arnold v. District Council No. 9

423 F. Supp. 861 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 13, 1976

This would appear self-evident since his right to nominate and vote and the similar rights of his supporters would be clearly prejudiced and compromised since Mr. … Arnold and a dilution of his right to an equal vote and to nominate a qualified candidate. (Plaintiff’s memorandum of Law at 6.)

Yajure v. DiMarzo

130 F. Supp. 2d 568 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 14, 2001

They also assert that DiMarzo, Tumulo and Kelly are entitled to qualified immunity for their actions, and that the federal civil rights complaint necessarily implicates the validity of plaintiffs’ state court criminal conviction … In order to establish a First Amendment retaliation claim, a plaintiff must show that his conduct was protected by the First Amendment and that “defendant’s conduct was motivated by or substantially caused by [plaintiffs]

Santiago v. THE NEWBURGH ENLARGED CITY SCHOOL DIST.

485 F. Supp. 2d 327 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 5, 2007

In order to make out a prima facie case, a plaintiff must, inter alia, establish that she was qualified for *338 her position. A person who cannot type is not qualified to be a typist. … In connection with this motion, the court has obtained a copy of the EEOC charge, and it clearly alleges discrimination based on race, disability and retaliation.

Castillo v. Walsh

443 F. Supp. 2d 557 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 3, 2006

A state court decision is “contrary to” clearly established federal law if it “applies a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth in [Supreme Court precedent]” or “confronts a set of facts that are materially indistinguishable … Accordingly, this Court can grant habeas relief only if this determination resulted in a decision contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, or an unreasonable determination of the facts

Pieco, Inc. v. Atlantic Computer Systems, Inc. (In Re Atlantic Computer Systems, Inc.)

173 B.R. 844 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 15, 1994

In response, Atlantic contends that the language of the various agreements clearly and unambiguously establishes them as distinct agreements and that through the operation of the Master Lease’s “hell or high water” clause … Certainly the Flexleases on their face qualify as such an amendment.

Williams v. Regus Management Group, LLC

836 F. Supp. 2d 159 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 6, 2011

There is no dispute over whether Williams satisfies the first two elements of his prima facie discrimination case: he is a member of a protected class and he was both qualified for his job and performed it satisfactorily. … Regus was well aware of Williams’ strong preference to live in New York with his wife, and forcing him to move back to Dallas would clearly impact him in an adverse way. 2.

Mechigian v. Art Capital Corp.

612 F. Supp. 1421 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 25, 1985

Courts which require “horizontal commonality,” require plaintiff to show a pooling of the investors’ interests in order to establish a “common enterprise.” See Salcer v. … Moreover, given his presentation of the case thus far, I have serious doubts that he is qualified to represent the proposed class.

New Rochelle Voter Defense Fund v. City of New Rochelle

308 F. Supp. 2d 152 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 10, 2003

This is clearly established. Old District 3 ’ was geographically compact and, when created, had an African-American population of 60.5% in 1993. … As observed earlier, clearly this was the case prior to 1993, when Council members were elected At Large.

Straker v. Jones

986 F. Supp. 2d 345 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 10, 2013

Yet Congress clearly did not contemplate such a windfall for alien defendants. … However, there are “established exceptions to the exhaustion rule,” and one, futility, applies here. Id.

Martin v. United States

971 F. Supp. 827 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 31, 1997

He told us that he had been released from prison in 1995 and that while the incident was now 7-1/2 year ago, he remembered it clearly. … Co., 84 N.Y.2d 972 , 622 N.Y.S.2d 496, 497 , 646 N.E.2d 798, 799 (1994) (plaintiff failed to establish prima facie case of negligence where no notice of ice patch established).

Barnett v. The City of Yonkers

District Court, S.D. New York · May 19, 2020

performs the investigative functions normally performed by a detective or police officer, he is eligible only for qualified immunity.” (citations and quotation marks omitted)). … by absolute immunity.

Kounitz v. Slaatten

901 F. Supp. 650 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 28, 1995

Clearly, Kounitz was not terminated as a result of exercising her First Amendment rights. She spoke only after the adverse employment decision had been made. … If she is successful in asserting a good faith immunity defense, the municipality may be wholly liable because it cannot assert the good faith immunity of its employees as a defense to a § 1983 action.

Pulizotto v. McMahon

District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 23, 2019

McMahon’s Claim for Qualified Immunity McMahon raises a defense of qualified immunity to Pulizotto’s First Amendment retaliation claims.9 Qualified immunity requires a court to determine … clearly established right.

In Re the Arbitration Between U.S. Offshore, Inc. & Seabulk Offshore, Ltd.

753 F. Supp. 86 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 5, 1990

Thus, there was no “clearly governing” legal principle at issue. … Certainly, they disregarded no “clearly applicable” rule in so doing.

Alvarado v. Kerrigan

152 F. Supp. 2d 350 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 30, 2001

immunity; and (4) plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies against Kerrigan. … Thus, a prisoner suing under § 1983 for denial of due process at a prison disciplinary hearing must establish both that the disciplinary confinement constituted “an atypical and significant hardship” in relation to the ordinary

Veras-Mejia v. Brennan

418 F. Supp. 680 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 25, 1976

The protection of the American labor market which Congress clearly sought to achieve in enacting § 1182(a)(14) would be completely eviscerated were plaintiffs’ interpretation to prevail, for vast changes could take place … Since there is clearly a genuine issue of material fact concerning the priority date which would have been reached by March 4, 1971 in the absence of the Directive held illegal in Lewis-Mota, neither the defendants’ nor the