Case law

Morris v. Reynolds

107 F. Supp. 2d 421 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 3, 2000

The Court further addressed the meaning of the phrase “clearly established Federal law.” See id. at 1523. … resulted in a decision that was contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the United States Supreme Court.

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.

Crumpler v. United States

495 F. Supp. 266 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 20, 1980

, 95 L.Ed. 152 (1950), the Supreme Court adopted an extremely restrictive interpretation of the Act that does not appear to be supported by the language of the statute but has withstood the test of time and has remained immune … This inquiry may help to determine whether the exams fall within the “incident to military service” standard established by Feres . Furthermore, Mrs.

Severin v. New York City Department Of Education

District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 31, 2023

Third, they argue that Severin fails to show that Superintendent Prayor had personal involvement in the alleged retaliation and that Prayor is protected by qualified immunity. Def. Mem. at 15–19. … Severin also argues that Prayor and Barnett were involved in the alleged retaliation against him and are not protected by qualified immunity. Opp. at 15–20.

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. City of New York

528 F. Supp. 1245 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 7, 1981

establishes that the Council, Mr. … The designation of the Morosco as eligible for the National Register does not qualify as significant information mandating the preparation of a supplemental FEIS. This claim is dismissed.

DGM Investments, Inc. v. New York Futures Exchange, Inc.

224 F.R.D. 133 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 23, 2004

The party claiming the privilege “has the burden to establish its existence.” Friedman, 738 F.2d at 1341 . … Accordingly, the NYBOT Defendants have not established that NYBOT’s compliance manuals are protected from discovery by the qualified investigatory privilege.

Burns v. Delaware Charter Guarantee & Trust Co.

805 F. Supp. 2d 12 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 8, 2011

Therefore, Plaintiffs have failed to establish their standing under ERISA. Plaintiffs also have not established any ERISA rights. It would appear that Plaintiffs seek to establish a private right of action under ERISA. … Defendants contend that the SIRTA’s exculpatory language immunizes them from Plaintiffs’ breach of contract claims.

Action Nissan, Inc. v. Nissan North America

454 F. Supp. 2d 108 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 22, 2006

This was done in an apparent effort to qualify for NNA bonus programs. (Grimm Decl., Ex. S at 1.) … J. at 17), plaintiffs attempt to establish this distinction only further establishes the duplicative nature of the claim.

Aurea Jewelry Creations, Inc. v. Lissona

344 F. Supp. 179 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 9, 1972

This case and Longines are clearly distinguishable. In sum, the court finds that defendant’s contacts with the New York forum are insufficient to establish the requisite jurisdictional predicate. … within the state, by any person authorized to make service within the state who is a resident of the state or by any person authorized to make service by the laws of the state ... in which service is made or by any duly qualified

Locher v. Unum Life Insurance Co. of America

126 F. Supp. 2d 769 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 16, 2001

Although D’Niaye, as a lay witness, is clearly incompetent to diagnose the etiology of any physical difficulties she may allegedly have observed, her testimony as to her personal observations is not clearly irrelevant to … To the extent such records are proffered to establish disability as of the date of termination of employment they are not clearly irrelevant, and UNUM’s application is denied. 5. Reports and/or Testimony of Dr.

Capo v. Bowers

218 F. Supp. 2d 505 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 29, 2002

In furtherance of their CBAs, the NYSA and the ILA have established jointly administered employee benefit trust funds to provide benefits to employees and their beneficiaries. … to the provisions of a CBA is afforded considerable deference and may be vacated, insofar as is relevant here, only if it is in manifest disregard of the law, i.e., if the arbitrator knew of a governing legal principle clearly

American Geophysical Union v. Texaco Inc.

802 F. Supp. 1 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 26, 1992

This factor clearly favors the plaintiffs, as Chickering has copied the entirety of the copyrighted articles in question. … Most notable has been the creation of the CCC, and its establishment of efficient licensing systems — the TRS, established in 1978, followed by the AAS, established in 1983.

Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Reimerdes

104 F. Supp. 2d 334 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 19, 2000

Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 639 , 107 S.Ct. 3034 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987) (in order to defeat qualified immunity defense to § 1983 claim, plaintiff must show that defendant unreasonably violated clearly established legal rule … ; legal rule must be defined in specific terms in order to avoid transforming doctrine of qualified immunity into basis for unqualified liability by generality of characterizations of constitutional rights). 109 .

In re Eloise Curtis, Inc.

261 F. Supp. 325 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 6, 1966

The neglect of the accounts receivable by the Bureau between April 4, 1963 and June 27, 1963 is established by the record. … Section 44a, as amended in 1938, seems internally consistent therefore only if “fails to qualify” means a failure to qualify for any reason and not merely for an omission to file a bond.

Lin v. Shim

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

Accordingly, Plaintiff has not established his entitlement to a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunctive relief. … doctrine of judicial immunity.

Fresca v. Federal Deposit Insurance

818 F. Supp. 664 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 16, 1993

That factor is clearly critical under the regulation. In Rice v. Resolution Trust Corp., 785 F.Supp. 1385 (D.Ariz.1992), plaintiff was the CEO of the failed bank. … First of all, it is by no means obvious that the ERP would qualify as an employment contract under the regulation at all.

DeSilvis v. National Railroad Passenger Corp.

97 F. Supp. 2d 459 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 9, 2000

Id. ¶ 7 . 7 DISCUSSION The principles governing the grant or denial of summary judgment are well established. … In addition, since Amtrak is a "corporation” and not “an agency or establishment of the United States Government,” 45 U.S.C. § 541 , it is also "deprive[d] of sovereign immunity from suit.”

Woods v. Bourne Co.

841 F. Supp. 118 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 10, 1994

nineteen-year extension of copyright, Bourne is only entitled to receive post-termination ASCAP performance royalties for derivative works authorized before termination, the question on this record is whether there is evidence establishing … Under this ruling Bourne continues to receive the income from the sales of records. 14 .Bourne Trial Brief at p. 4 clearly articulates this position in arguing the burden of proof issue: Who has the burden of showing whether

Preble-Rish Haiti, S.A. v. Republic of Haiti

District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 29, 2023

These provisions covering “all correspondence” between the contracting parties qualify as a “special arrangement for service” between PRH and respondents within the meaning of section 1608(a)(1). See Arb. … Thus, § 26 does establish a special arrangement for the service of process under the FSIA.”) (collecting cases).

Carval Investors UK Ltd. v. Giddens ex rel. SIPA Liquidation of Lehman Bros. (In re Lehman Bros.)

506 B.R. 346 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 26, 2014

“Findings of fact, whether based on oral or documentary evidence, shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous.” Id.; see Solow v. … SIPA places the burden of proof to establish “customer” status on the claimant by requiring that a debtor’s obligations to its customers be “ascertainable from the books and records of the debtor” or “otherwise established