Case law

Securities & Exchange Commission v. Waterhouse

797 F. Supp. 1217 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 14, 1992

The credible evidence at trial clearly demonstrated that PW took this factor into account in making their determination. See Tr. at 850-51. 28 . … Although this was concededly an error in accounting, there is no evidence that it resulted from anything other than honest error, and in any event it was clearly not material. 57 .

Independent Productions Corp. v. Loew's, Inc.

22 F.R.D. 266 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 29, 1958

That the reasonableness and good faith of a defendant’s actions are relevant to proof of individual, as distinguished from conspiratorial, activity -is a firmly established rule of evidence. Theatre Enterprises, Inc. v. … At the taking of the Lazarus deposition, plaintiffs did, however, reserve any other constitutional privileges and immunities that Lazarus might have.

Druckman v. Morningside Acquisition I, LLC

District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 30, 2022

Alternately, Morningside argues that removal is proper under section 1442(a)(1) because it seeks to invoke a federal defense and it qualifies as a federal officer. … A defendant’s intention to argue an affirmative defense of immunity does not transform the nature of the claims against it.

Grund v. Delaware Charter Guarantee & Trust Co.

788 F. Supp. 2d 226 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 26, 2011

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

Westchester Day School v. Village of Mamaroneck

417 F. Supp. 2d 477 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 2, 2006

Clearly, defendants have not established that no alternatives other than denial were capable of protecting against detrimental visual impacts. … As an initial matter, although the Court qualified Fish as an expert in "community planning and environmental concerns” (Tr. 705), the Court refused to qualify him as an expert in the "determination of needs of school populations

McNeilab, Inc. v. American Home Products Corp.

675 F. Supp. 819 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 1, 1987

This was apparently done with the conservative objective of limiting the “misled” group to those who had received a message which clearly denoted serious, long-term damage. … Furthermore, as discussed above, McNeil has established the strong probability of its ultimate success on the merits. Thus the requirements of a preliminary injunction are clearly satisfied.

International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. McAvey

450 F. Supp. 1265 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 28, 1978

Robert Linn, a highly qualified architect, who is the manager of operations of the Trade Center, utilized both his own expertise and experience and that of a skilled traffic engineering group to select the distribution areas … For purposes of this preliminary injunction, then, plaintiffs have failed to establish that irreparable injury results from this prohibition.

Carroll v. Trump

District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 7, 2023

Trump’s first defense is absolute presidential immunity. … Trump’s first defense asserting absolute presidential immunity.

Perry

District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 4, 2026

To establish a violation of Title II, a plaintiff must allege that (1) he or she is a qualified individual with a disability; (2) the defendants are subject to the ADA; and (3) he or she was “denied the opportunity to participate … Sep. 30, 2013) (“The fact that an individual has a visible limp or type of walking impairment does not per se establish an ADA-qualifying disability.”)

Barrett v. United States

660 F. Supp. 1291 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 5, 1987

Liability Under the doctrine of Sovereign Immunity, the Government cannot be sued absent an express waiver of immunity. United States v. … Sections 1346 (b), 2671-80, which waives immunity for certain types of suits. Title 28 U.S.C.

Application of Daniels

140 F. Supp. 322 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 10, 1956

Thus clearly there is no problem of international law in this case as petitioner has the books in his control in this country. … Time after time in establishing the limits of this great constitutional protection, the courts have repeated that basic phrase making it patently clear that the capacity in which the desired documents are held is as vital

McBean v. City of New York

228 F.R.D. 487 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 27, 2005

Plaintiffs have the burden of establishing that the class satisfies all requirements. Caridad v. Metro-N. Commuter R.R., 191 F.3d 283, 291 (2d Cir.1999). … This requirement was not addressed by any of the parties with regard to plaintiffs’ proposed class, perhaps because it is clearly satisfied.

Puglisi v. Underhill Park Taxpayer Assoc.

947 F. Supp. 673 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 12, 1996

George, there is no indication that the hotel was alleging injury on its own behalf but was clearly trying to bring the claim on behalf of its black and latino HIV and AIDS infected tenants, the direct victims of the alleged … Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic, 506 U.S. 263 , 113 S.Ct. 753 , 122 L.Ed.2d 34 (1993), held that opposition to abortion does not qualify as a class-based invidiously discriminatory animus for purposes of a private conspiracy

Nippon Elec. Glass Co., Ltd. v. Sheldon

539 F. Supp. 542 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 21, 1982

Sheldon’s apparatus, to qualify for a patent, must also be “novel[.]” … The third requirement established by the John Deere rule is determination of the “level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.” 383 U.S. at 18 .

Phillips v. White Plains Hospital

District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 10, 2025

and the exemption applications are clearly and substantially referenced in the Second Amended Complaint. … Here, Plaintiffs have failed to allege that Defendant is a state actor or that there is a sufficiently close nexus between Defendant and the state to establish state action.

Malarkey v. Texaco, Inc.

794 F. Supp. 1248 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 29, 1992

To obtain such a stay, an applicant must (i) make a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits of the appeal; (ii) establish that unless a stay is granted it will suffer irreparable injury; (iii) show that … A corporation the size of Texaco, which presumably shifts personnel as a *1251 matter of course, will not be irreversibly injured by promoting a single, well-qualified employee. See Malarkey v.

Friends First Jewelry Corp. v. Giuffrida

587 F. Supp. 1018 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 13, 1984

Plaintiff urges that its February 15, 1983, filing date conforms with the deadline established by Kennedy’s letter. … Plaintiff has not established that the FIA administrator waived any conditions or terms of the insurance policy or that defendant should be estopped from relying on that policy.

Endurance American Specialty Insurance v. Century Surety Co.

46 F. Supp. 3d 398 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 15, 2014

It is equally well-established under New York law that the “general rule of ratable contribution is inapplicable, however, if it ‘would effectively deny and clearly distort the plain meaning of the terms of the policies.’ … "The parties’ briefs assume that New York law controls, and such 'implied consent ... is sufficient to establish choice of law.' ” Krumme v.

In Re New York Investors Mutual Group, Inc.

143 F. Supp. 51 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 13, 1956

Any such contract or lease not assumed or rejected within such time, whether or not a trustee has been appointed or has qualified, shall be deemed to be rejected.” … To overcome the Referee’s order it must be established that his findings were clearly erroneous. 13 And in this instance there is involved a matter of business judgment and discretion which will not be disturbed unless there

Gerszberg v. Li & Fung (Trading) Ltd.

215 F. Supp. 3d 282 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 10, 2016

Under New York law, to establish rights as a third-party beneficiary, a party must establish “(1) the existence of a valid and binding contract between other parties, (2) that the contract was intended for its benefit, and … Gerszberg notes that, if the purpose of this provision were to immunize Trading against any legal actions by NAF/Gerszberg, it would have said so more clearly and mentioned Trading by name.