Case law

In Re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Jan. 2, 1985

605 F. Supp. 839 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 11, 1985

Clearly this information may be used against the defendant at trial to establish the "substantial income" element of the 848 count and the items subject to forfeiture. … This is clearly not the law in this circuit.

Air Line Pilots Ass'n, International v. Shugrue (In Re Ionosphere Clubs, Inc.)

154 B.R. 623 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 24, 1993

Rather, the bankruptcy judge held that only vacation pay earned for work actually performed within the 90-day period qualified for inclusion as a third priority claim. … The bankruptcy court’s factual determinations are binding unless clearly erroneous, but its conclusions of law are to be reviewed de novo.

J.S. v. Ramapo Central School District

165 F. Supp. 2d 570 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 21, 2001

The District maintained that Jeffrey did not qualify for remedial reading because his ability was not low enough — and that he could and would meet the standards of a New York State Regent’s Diploma. … Indeed, the majority opinion reviewed its past decisions, and concluded that it was not establishing a new principle of law.

Fahey v. United States

153 F. Supp. 878 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 26, 1957

The objective is to return the patient to society, which should be done as soon as, in the judgment of properly qualified doctors and psychiatrists, it is likely to be safe for others and helpful to the patient. *** “ * * … Such conduct is clearly within the scope of the exception and clearly not actionable.

Witcher v. New York City Department of Education

District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 23, 2023

A decision is “clearly erroneous” when, “upon review of the entire record, [the court is] left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. … is not established.”)

Yates v. Bair Transport, Inc.

249 F. Supp. 681 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 2, 1965

with her position at trial], which are most germane to the question of plaintiff’s shelter, were the Department of Welfare’s business and the prac *686 tice * * * of maintaining records on those receiving welfare support qualified … As the statute clearly states, such a matter may be shown to affect the weight to be given the report, but it does not preclude its admission in evidence.” 263 F.2d at 615.

In Re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether ("MTBE") Products Liability Litigation

457 F. Supp. 2d 324 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 23, 2006

It clearly refers only to the oxygenates and ethers found in commercial grade MTBE. VI. … Apr. 1, 2003) ("absent any grant of immunity to marketers of oxygenates, and absent any EPA intervention based on what it finds to be unreasonable price hikes, ... this Court [ ] finds that the CAA provides that open market

Verri v. Nanna

20 F. Supp. 2d 616 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 16, 1998

The New York Civil Service Law clearly creates a property interest in continued public employment. N.Y. Civ. Serv. Law § 75 ; Marino v. Ameruso, 837 F.2d 45, 46 (2d Cir.1988). … Plaintiffs first point, that he has pled a defect in an established state procedure is correct, because the actions of high-level Village employees, particularly when taken in concert, may be considered established state

Procter & Gamble Co. v. Johnson & Johnson Inc.

485 F. Supp. 1185 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 22, 1980

Ryan’s opinion was provisional and qualified by the word “appears”. It was based solely on the face of the trademark register. … The balancing of the equities clearly favors the defendant.

Ingber v. Enzor

664 F. Supp. 814 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 15, 1987

If Congress desires to go further, it must speak more clearly than it has.” — U.S. at-, 107 S.Ct. at 2881. … Arguably, Von Barta and his co-schemer, William Harty, were in fact "established Long Island arbitrageurs.”

Corum v. Beth Israel Medical Center

373 F. Supp. 550 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 17, 1974

Plaintiffs concede that, if a proper formula were worked' out, it could be established as a maximum. … This proviso clearly indicates that a facility’s financial ability to provide uncompensated services is a factor to be considered in determining what constitutes a reasonable volume of such services.

Hall v. Department of Corrections Medical Department

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

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue in the alternative that Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim must be dismissed based on the defense of qualified immunity. … Because the Court has dismissed the Eighth Amendment claim as insufficiently pleaded on the grounds described above, it declines to address Defendants’ qualified immunity defense at this juncture.

Lee v. Air Canada

228 F. Supp. 3d 302 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 10, 2017

Unlike its predecessor, this new treaty clearly “favor[ed] passengers rather than airlines.” Id. … Air Canada established that it did not neglect to make any standard announcements with respect to passenger flow, Supp.

City of New York v. TAVERN ON THE GREEN, LP

427 B.R. 233 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 10, 2010

However, the court in Bazaar did not examine the question of prior rights under New York law, and the facts of that case are clearly distinguishable. … Angel Flight Am., Inc., 522 F.3d 1200, 1210-11 (11th Cir.2008) (“Purposely failing to disclose other users’ rights to use the same or similar marks may qualify as a material *243 omission justifying cancellation of a trademark

Jennings v. WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION

283 F. Supp. 308 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 15, 1968

These grievances do not pertain to “the establishment, administration, interpretation or application of Insurance, Pension or other Benefit Plans * * Section XIV-A-7 (i). … The Union relies on two clearly stated provisions of the local supplements and I see no ground for the Company claim that the obligation is an implied one.

Dixon v. Blackensee

District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 11, 2019

Hence, to prevail on a Bivens claim, a plaintiff must plead that there was a violation of a clearly established constitutional right and that a defendant was personally involved in the alleged wrong. … remain immune.

DBL Liquidating Trust v. Clarkson Construction Co. (In Re Drexel Burnham Lambert Group, Inc.)

157 B.R. 539 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 6, 1993

Snapp was clearly qualified to retain such authority, holding “a bachelor’s in economics and a bachelor’s in business administration, and some additional graduate courses in business,” and having “experience in the field … This testimony establishes conclusively Carpenter’s phone calls to Bill Clarkson in no way materially affected or impaired the review of the confirmation notices and monthly statements by Snapp, the qualified individual designated

Romero v. Bellevue Hospital

District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 20, 2023

Plaintiff claims that the hospital’s mask rule goes against [Section 360bbb-3], where it clearly states that no emergency use authorized medical devices [can] be mandated, such as mask, face … Nor can Plaintiff direct prosecuting attorneys to initiate a criminal proceeding against Defendant, because prosecutors possess discretionary authority to bring criminal actions, and they are “immune from control or interference

Monserrate v. NEW YORK STATE SENATE

695 F. Supp. 2d 80 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 19, 2010

The first factor clearly weighs in Mon-serrate’s favor. … Moreover, because state immunity extends to state officers who act on behalf of the state, see Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v.

Carter-Wallace, Inc. v. Riverton Laboratories, Inc.

304 F. Supp. 357 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 2, 1969

That is he sought to establish that the substance was new and possessed a longer duration than its predecessor mephenesin. These matters were clearly covered in the patent. Dr. … It is clearly established that “a person sued for infringement may challenge the validity of the patent on various grounds, including fraudulent procurement.” Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v.