Case law

1487 Amusement Corp. v. Redlich

350 F. Supp. 822 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 6, 1972

[W]e do not question or qualify in any way the principles of equity, comity, and federalism that must restrain a federal court when asked to enjoin a state court proceeding. … regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities

Garcia v. Griffin

District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 9, 2020

Moving Defendants also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. (See id.) … Plaintiff is advised that the second amended complaint will replace, not 3 Because the Court has granted the Motion for the foregoing reasons, it does not address Moving Defendants’ qualified immunity argument.

Tripi v. Prudential Securities, Inc.

303 F. Supp. 2d 349 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 23, 2003

STANDARD OF REVIEW “It is well-established that courts must grant an arbitration panel’s decision great deference.” Duferco Int’l Steel Trading v. T. Klaveness Shipping, 333 F.3d 383, 388 (2d Cir.2003). … The Second Circuit has cautioned that “manifest disregard clearly means more than error or misunderstanding with respect to the law.” Halligan v.

First National Bank of Boston v. Shugrue (In Re Ionosphere Clubs, Inc.)

123 B.R. 166 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 17, 1991

to each of its obligations, so that a default can be clearly traced to a particular loan. … Because the Aircraft are the type of property specified in § 1110, the interests here qualify as PMESIs and thus § 1110’s exemption from the automatic stay applies. 4.

Aguilar v. Immigration & Customs Enforcement Division of United States Department of Homeland Security

259 F.R.D. 51 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 23, 2009

By the same token, however, the Plaintiffs’ claims clearly cannot be dismissed as frivolous. … All of the documents turned over in redacted form pursuant to this Discovery Order clearly qualify for “Highly Confidential” protection.

Atlantic Monthly Company v. Frederick Ungar Publishing Co.

197 F. Supp. 524 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 26, 1961

In addition, instances of actual confusion were satisfactorily established. … Defendant’s purposeful course of conduct clearly emerges from the entire record and is emphasized by demeanor evidence.

Levine v. Fenstermaker

District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 2, 2024

Abuse of Process To establish an abuse of process claim, a plaintiff must establish that the defendant “(1) employs regularly issued legal process to compel performance … Eleventh Amendment Immunity Under the Eleventh Amendment, “state governments may not be sued in federal court unless they have waived their Eleventh Amendment immunity, or unless

Leibovitz v. Paramount Pictures Corp.

948 F. Supp. 1214 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 18, 1996

To qualify as a parody under the Court’s definition, however, the second work must comment upon or criticize the original copyrighted work. … Several courts have found that a work that is not referential to the copyrighted work does not qualify as a parody or a fair use. In Steinberg v.

Republic National Life Insurance v. Beasley

73 F.R.D. 658 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 24, 1977

Counsel claim to be faced with reluctance on the part of qualified appraisers to attack appraisals prepared by others within the profession. … However, the Ashers could not, even were it otherwise advisable to add them as plaintiffs, qualify to maintain a stockholder’s derivative suit.

Cherner v. Westchester Jewish Community Services, Inc.

District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 28, 2022

Plaintiff has failed to establish state action under any of these three tests. … psychologist[s] and caseworkers . . . are immune from suit under the doctrine of absolute witness immunity.”)

Seabrook v. City of New York

509 F. Supp. 2d 393 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 14, 2007

Even under a generalized pleading standard, such a tangential allegation clearly fails to identify any similarly situated individuals who were treated differently. … Even if this regulation established a generalized obligation to enforce regulations or perform inspections, it does not create an absolute duty running to individual plaintiffs. See Wooters v.

Farmer v. Moses

232 F. Supp. 154 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 30, 1964

Plaintiffs therefore contend that their suit is one in equity specifically authorized by statute to restrain a claimed deprivation, under color of state law, of their rights, privileges and immunities secured by the First … But, clearly, the Fair grounds differ in significant respects from the usual streets and thoroughfares of a city or town, even including a “company” or privately owned town.

Doe v. Deer Mountain Day Camp, Inc.

682 F. Supp. 2d 324 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 13, 2010

Adam’s ADA Claim for Declaratory Relief 32 In order to establish a prima facie case for declaratory relief pursuant to the ADA Title III, Adam must establish that: (a) he has a “disability”; (b) Defendants are owners or operators … Moreover, Plaintiff has clearly established that DMDC and DMBA “own” and “operate” camps.

Cannon v. Texas Gulf Sulphur Co.

47 F.R.D. 60 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 20, 1969

Supp. 164 (S.D.N.Y. 1968), these figures indicate that joinder of all members of the class would clearly be impracticable. … Attorneys for moving plaintiffs stated at the October 30 hearing that they wished to proceed with discovery in order to establish facts with respect to the issuance of the April 12 press release.

TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, LOCAL 100 v. New York City Transit Auth.

358 F. Supp. 2d 347 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 25, 2005

The October 12 Order, following the guidelines set forth in Conroy, established the legal principles the Court will apply to this case, in the absence of further guidance from the Court of Appeals. … Furthermore, the Court of Appeals may find it necessary to qualify or develop Conroy’s dicta to take into account the Authority’s concerns.

New Alliance Party v. New York State Board of Elections

861 F. Supp. 282 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 30, 1994

Not all commonly-held beliefs can be transformed into judicially-mandated beliefs that are immune from the adversarial process. … Moreover, even if such evidence were sufficient to establish position bias, it could not establish that a doubled-up party is at an inherent disadvantage.

Minpeco, S.A. v. Hunt

686 F. Supp. 427 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 12, 1988

Clearly, any sole shareholder has a strong legitimate interest in the major decisions of a wholly-owned corporation. … Here, however, it is clearly defendants’ burden to pierce the corporate veil, see, e.g., Brunswick Corp. v.

Castellano v. United States

795 F. Supp. 2d 272 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 28, 2011

Rather, the Loras state that Lara was speaking to Lara’s own attorney, who was present because Lara testified pursuant to a grant of testimonial immunity. … Even if the Second Circuit would have heard the claim, Castellano cannot establish that the omitted claim of ineffectiveness was clearly stronger than the issues Dunn did raise. See Morales v.

Borg-Johnson Electronics, Inc. v. Christenberry

169 F. Supp. 746 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 19, 1959

One of the primary purposes of the Act was to establish qualified, impartial Hearing Examiners who would not be mere “rubber stamps” for the agency’s prosecuting arm. Ramspeck v. … I am constrained to reach this result despite my personal view that plaintiff’s acts clearly warrant the imposition of a fraud order.

Ausa Life Insurance v. Ernst & Young

119 F. Supp. 2d 386 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 11, 2000

Indeed, the evidence clearly shows just the opposite: that the Businessland acquisition and the problems in the I/S and M & E businesses would have caused JWP’s insolvency and default even if its financial condition had been … Thus, if E & Y had either withheld the use of its opinion or issued a qualified opinion, the Businessland acquisition would not have been stopped; it had already taken place.