Case law

United States v. Fall River Navigation Co.

285 F. Supp. 354 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 15, 1968

It is true that practice in admiralty prior to the 1966 amendments was “extremely plastic” and was “not immune to some of the changes in procedure elsewhere.” Boston Ins. Co. v. … But the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were never applied in admiralty where admiralty practice was “settled” or “established” to the contrary. United States v.

OLBA v. Unger

637 F. Supp. 2d 201 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 28, 2009

The statute has been interpreted to require a petitioner to show not only that clearly established federal law was erroneously or incorrectly applied, but that the application was unreasonable. See Williams v. … Procedural default in state court qualifies as an independent and adequate state ground when “the last state court rendering a judgment in the case clearly and expressly states that its judgment rests on a state procedural

Ngambo v. Social Security Administration

District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 16, 2024

, unless such immunity is waived.”); Wheeler v. … In his opposition to the motion to dismiss, Ngambo states only that his case is clearly authorized beyond reach of sovereign immunity as Plaintiff’s case has all the characteristics of an implied contract, to

In Re Vivendi Universal, Sa Securities Litig.

618 F. Supp. 2d 335 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 28, 2009

Research, Inc., 73 F.3d 464, 473 (2d Cir.1996) ("The party asserting the privilege must establish the essential elements of the privilege.") … Indeed, the only possible question regarding the applicability of French law would the one the magistrate focused on: whether or not E & Y-U.S. qualifies as an "expert" under the Code de commerce.

Reddy v. Salvation Army

591 F. Supp. 2d 406 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 21, 2008

The first question, then, is whether an extension of Reddy’s IEP qualifies as an adverse employment action. … criticism negatively impacted the terms or conditions of a plaintiffs employment cannot constitute an adverse employment action.” 161 The Second Circuit has clearly articulated that “criticism of an employee (which is part

Jefferies v. Sugarman

345 F. Supp. 172 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 30, 1972

The Westchester intervenors are in a different situation, and they perhaps present the issues in this case more clearly than does Mrs. Jefferies. … (b) A HR recipient participating in a public work project established under section 164 of the Social Services Law shall be deemed employable but not employed." (Emphasis added.) "385.7 [formerly § 385.6] Sanctions.

In Re the Complaint of Southwind Shipping Co.

709 F. Supp. 79 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 16, 1989

Moreover, the term "disregard" *84 implies that the arbitrator appreciates the existence of a clearly governing legal principle but decides to ignore or pay no attention to it. … The governing law alleged to have been ignored by the arbitrators must be well defined, explicit, and clearly applicable.

Calhoon v. Bonnabel

560 F. Supp. 101 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 8, 1982

The right or immunity must be such that it will be supported if the Constitution or laws of the United States are given one construction and defeated if they receive another.... … The complaint is clearly drawn only in terms of New York’s Taylor Law; moreover, even if we assume arguendo that state law is preempted by the Railway Labor Act, this is by itself no reason to assume that LIRR’s complaint

United States Ex Rel. Mikes v. Straus

98 F. Supp. 2d 517 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 2, 2000

Mikes never established that the machine was not calibrated during its periodic service checks by the manufacturer. … frivolous, clearly vexatious, or brought primarily for purposes of harassment. 31 U.S.C. § 3730 (d)(4).

Poughkeepsie Supermarket Corp. v. County of Dutchess

140 F. Supp. 3d 309 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 15, 2015

In relevant part, Local Law No. 9 provides that a “retail food establishment in Dutchess County which sells, offers for sale or exposes for sale a consumer commodity shall clearly disclose on each item, the selling price … Procedural History Plaintiff sues under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivations of rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the First Amendment of the U.S.

Bah v. Apple Inc.

District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 8, 2021

Even in the absence of probable cause, an officer may prevail on a section 1983 claim of false arrest under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Because Bah has failed to state a claim, the Court declines to address these defendants’ argument that they are immune from liability under the doctrine of qualified immunity.

Katz v. Department of Justice

498 F. Supp. 177 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 17, 1979

and establish the Government’s entitlement to withhold the materials. … Several federal courts have questioned or rejected the argument that “lead materials” should qualify for the (b)(2) exemption. See Ferguson v. Kelley, 448 F.Supp. 919, 925 (D.Ill.1978); Day v.

Kravitz v. State of New York

District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 14, 2022

In the alternative, Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. (See id. at 14–15.) … Moreover, under the doctrine of qualified immunity, a government official is immune from liability “whenever (1) his conduct ‘did not violate clearly established law’, or (2) ‘it was objectively reasonable . . . to believe

Wamai v. Industrial Bank of Korea

District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 14, 2021

Finally, the plaintiffs note that they have retained qualified U.S. counsel not capable of representing them if this litigation continues in Korea. … “The defendant bears the burden of establishing that a presently available and adequate alternative forum exists.” Abdullahi v.

Pappas v. Giuliani

118 F. Supp. 2d 433 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 26, 2000

immunity. … In light of the foregoing conclusions of law, it is unnecessary for this Court to reach the third argument raised by defendants, namely the individual defendants' personal involvement or entitlement to qualified immunity

Herrera v. United States of America

District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 27, 2022

As relevant here, the “doctrine of sovereign immunity is jurisdictional in nature . . . and therefore to prevail, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that her claims within an applicable waiver.” … immunity.”

Lindsay

District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 8, 2026

State of New York, 366 F.3d 138, 149 (2d Cir. 2004) (holding that Section 1983 claims against the DMV are “clearly barred by the Eleventh Amendment because the DMV is a state agency”); Haynie v. … DSCE is, as mentioned above, an arm of the state entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal court unless Congress has abrogated that immunity.

Nationsbank of Florida v. Banco Exterior De Espana

867 F. Supp. 167 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 17, 1994

New York clearly has a relation to this defendant and this litigation. … of a foreign state, unless the claimant establishes his claim or right to relief by evidence satisfactory to the Court.” 28 U.S.C. § 1608 (e).

Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank v. Morgan Stanley & Co.

651 F. Supp. 2d 155 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 2, 2009

The Rating Agencies The Rating Agencies argue that plaintiffs have not pled an actionable misrepresentation because (1) the Rating Agencies are entitled to immunity under the First Amendment and (2) even if the Rating Agencies … Both of these allegations establish that Morgan Stanley was well positioned to cause the false and misleading ratings to be disseminated to investors, thereby establishing Morgan Stanley’s opportunity to commit the alleged

John Gil Construction, Inc. v. Riverso

72 F. Supp. 2d 242 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 23, 1999

In determining whether a prospective bidder qualifies for inclusion on a list of pre-qualified bidders, the authority shall consider (1) the experience and past performance of the prospective bidder; (2) the prospective bidder … For example, “[i]n determining whether a prospective bidder qualifies for inclusion on a list of pre-qualified bidders .... [t]he authority may also consider such other factors as it deems appropriate.”