Case law

United States v. Lamont

18 F.R.D. 27 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 27, 1955

United States: “We have no disposition to qualify what has already been frequently decided by this court, that where the crime is a statutory one it must be charged with precision and certainty, and every ingredient of which … And pertinency must be “pleaded”. 12 This the present indictment does, but even the addition of this element does not establish this crime. More is required.

Woodhouse v. Meta Platforms Inc.

District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 8, 2023

and qualified immunity, why the court should not refer Woodhouse to the California State Bar and that court’s own standing committee on discipline, and why the court should not impose monetary sanctions. … or qualified immunity.

Malletier v. Dooney & Bourke, Inc.

525 F. Supp. 2d 558 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 13, 2007

Both were also clearly defined by Judge Scheindlin in 2004. … Holub’s expertise in colorimetry does not establish his expertise as a statistician. An expert qualified in one subject matter does not thereby become an expert for all purposes.

Lee v. Kucker & Bruh, LLP

958 F. Supp. 2d 524 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 2, 2013

It also should be noted that in this case, the creditor MPI had established no track record of reliability with Defendants. … While the court makes no finding of what procedures would have been sufficient, the absence of any procedure to avoid discoverable errors clearly is insufficient.

Aziz v. Butt

District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 6, 2025

A court may issue a TRO without notice to the adverse party only if “specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before … But this too would fail to establish Section 1983 liability: judges are absolutely immune from suit for damages for any actions taken within the scope of their judicial responsibilities. See Mireles v.

Sparrow Fund Management LP v. Mimedx Group, Inc.

District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 22, 2020

No. 141) at 13-25) As to Statements 1-3 of Sparrow’s defamation claim, Defendants contend that these statements are subject to qualified immunity. … Supp. 162, 171 (S.D.N.Y. 1995), and statements fairly describing a legal proceeding are afforded qualified immunity from defamation claims. N.Y. Civ. Rts. Law § 74.

Barberan v. Nationpoint

706 F. Supp. 2d 408 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 2, 2010

Thus, Plaintiffs have alleged facts sufficient to establish a plausible equitable quiet title claim against Nationpoint, MERS, and LaSalle. … In other words, § 1681h(e) is a limitation of liability provision that provides a qualified immunity defense to defendants who provide consumers required disclosures pursuant to §§ 1681g, 1681h, or 1681m.

Byrne v. British Broadcasting Corp.

132 F. Supp. 2d 229 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 22, 2001

To establish a claim of copyright infringement, a plaintiff must establish (1) ownership of a valid copyright and (2) unauthorized copying or a violation of one of the other exclusive rights afforded copyright owners pursuant … However, “non-profit organizations enjoy no special immunity from determinations of copyright violation. The question under factor one is the purpose and character of the use, not of the alleged infringer.” Lish v.

American National Fire Insurance v. Mirasco, Inc.

265 F. Supp. 2d 240 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 26, 2003

The first argument is clearly erroneous. Numerous pieces of evidence support the finding that Decree 6 resulted in the rejection of the IBP cargo. … Next, the translator, Khadiga Barrada (“Barrada”), was well-qualified.

Norwick v. Nyquist

417 F. Supp. 913 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 20, 1976

Even if Section 3001(3) had safely *921 negotiated all of the other shoals, on this rock it clearly founders. … It is inconceivable that defendants could establish, on the basis of the proposed testimony of Dr.

Istituto Per Lo Sviluppo Economico Dell' Italia Meridionale v. Sperti Products, Inc.

47 F.R.D. 310 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 10, 1969

The guarantee clearly states that even if terms are altered, defendant still unconditionally guarantees repayment of the loan. … If the defendant’s position were tenable, then only a very narrow class of guarantees could ever qualify for CPLR § 3213 application.

Weiser v. Koch

632 F. Supp. 1369 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 15, 1986

Clearly, the state is more familiar with the operation of the shelter system and which procedures would best satisfy these needs. … In essence, Pennhurst held that pendent jurisdiction does not permit an evasion of the state immunity guaranteed by the eleventh amendment. Id. at 123 , 104 S.Ct. at 920 .

In Re South African Apartheid Litigation

617 F. Supp. 2d 228 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 27, 2009

Dow Chemical Co., 517 F.3d 104, 120 (2d Cir.2008) (noting plaintiffs' concession that it was not clearly established that defendants' conduct during the Vietnam War violated norms of customary international law established … See also TRC Br. at 8 ("The ability of the TRC to grant amnesty to qualifying applicants belies the notion that some policy embodied in the TRC amounted to an implicit grant of amnesty to multinational corporations."). [315

Soroka v. JP Morgan Chase & Co.

500 F. Supp. 2d 217 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 19, 2007

It further stated that “with Chase, you can turn the equity you have in your home into cash you can use” and informed Plaintiff that “[y]ou’re pre-qualified* for up to $100,000 or more.” Id. … The Court finds that the letter sent by Defendants to Plaintiff clearly did constitute a firm offer within the meaning of the FCRA.

Rivera v. National Westminster Bank USA

801 F. Supp. 1123 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 5, 1992

Rather, the evidence reflects that defendants made no effort to promote him because he was not qualified for promotion. … To establish a prima facie case of discrimination with respect to his termination, plaintiff must show (1) that he was a member of a protected group; (2) that he was qualified for the job he was performing; (8) that he was

Callender v. New York State Department of Motor Vehicles

District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 27, 2025

Aug. 19, 2014) (finding that a cause of action under the NYSHRL “runs aground on sovereign immunity” because New York has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity for NYSHRL suits in federal court); Jackson v. … As the case law clearly establishes, equitable tolling is “only appropriate in rare and exceptional circumstances, in which a party is prevented in some extraordinary way from exercising his rights.” Baroor v.

Rivera v. Apfel

99 F. Supp. 2d 358 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 15, 2000

And, clearly, nothing in Heckler v. … My order does not establish any time period, short or long, within which SSA must proceed.

Arunga v. New York City Department of Personnel

342 F. Supp. 983 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 16, 1972

Thus, it is not surprising that Arunga was asked to participate in the enrichment project because, as a native of Kenya and a graduate of a college in Africa, he was especially qualified to foster additional enrichment experiences … As my findings of fact have pointed out, the only reason clearly enunciated by defendants to Arunga for denying him the position of personnel examiner trainee was that of his alienage.

Reed v. Rescap Borrower Claims Trust (In re Residential Capital LLC)

552 B.R. 50 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 23, 2015

Reed qualified for a number of loan programs in March of 2008, but that those options became “null and void when [Reed’s] property at 817 Matlack Dr. Moorestown NJ 08057 was placed into foreclosure.” Doc. 7767-20. … A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when the reviewing court is “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.”

Miranda v. United States

325 F. Supp. 217 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 16, 1970

The files of this Court in the custody of the Clerk and the notes of the Court reporter are clearly “files and records of the case” as those words are used in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 . … These seem clearly to be “files and records of the case”. Such appears to have been assumed by *219 our Court of Appeals in United States v. Falu, 421 F.2d 687 (1969) (per curiam).