Case law

Gabilly v. City Of New York

District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 17, 2021

immunity). … , does not necessarily establish that Defendants had probable cause to accuse him of resisting arrest.

Lucien Piccard Watch Corp. v. Since 1868 Crescent Corp.

314 F. Supp. 329 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 30, 1970

The Manhattan telephone directory lists in addition at least five business establishments using the name Da Vinci. … The name Da Vinci is clearly fanciful and arbitrary as applied to plaintiff’s wares, since it does not in any way describe their kind, qualities, properties or place of manufacture.

Whittlesey v. Union Carbide Corp.

567 F. Supp. 1320 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 29, 1983

Plaintiff is clearly entitled under those provisions to back pay to the date of judgment. … Consolidated Edison Co., 560 F.Supp. 1161 , 1165 & n. 24 (S.D.N.Y.1983), that, in order to qualify for liquidated damages, a plaintiff “must establish that the [employer] acted with knowledge of the illegality of his action

Amari J. Moody v. Verizon Communications Inc.; Verizon Wireless; John Does 1-10

District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 21, 2026

Under the Rehabilitation Act, “no otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States . . . shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits … ‘should be construed liberally’ to afford people with disabilities ‘equal access’ to the wide variety of establishments available to the nondisabled.” PGA Tour, Inc. v.

United States v. Flynn

103 F. Supp. 925 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 21, 1951

They claim a qualified technician found a tap on the phones of the Communist Party office in New York. … The law is plain that, to prevail upon a motion such as this, the challengers must clearly prove intentional or systematic exclusion of any group or class. Frazier v.

Alden-Rochelle, Inc. v. American Soc. of Composers, Authors & Publishers

80 F. Supp. 888 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 19, 1948

That Ascap is a monopoly, within the language of § 2 of the anti-trust laws, was clearly established at the trial. In United States v. … The fact that Ascap is a membership association gives it no immunity. “Arrangements or combinations designed to stifle, competition cannot be immunized by adopting a membership device accomplishing that purpose”.

Iwala v. New York City Police Department

District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 15, 2024

It is well established that “verbal harassment alone does not amount to a constitutional deprivation.” Ali v. Connick, 136 F. Supp. 3d 270, 276 (E.D.N.Y. 2015). … Ihave established a PACER account; 3.

Moskowitz v. La Suisse, Societe D'Assurances sur la Vie

282 F.R.D. 54 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 30, 2012

However, Caruso and Kraus clearly earned substantial sums from commissions they made on sales of the Marriage Policies. … Nevertheless, two out of three of La Suisse’s claims clearly arise from United States law. . Malka Moskowitz is Malka Moskovitz, Malka Rottenberg or Malka Moskovitz-Rottenberg.

Stewart v. Nynex Corp.

78 F. Supp. 2d 172 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 20, 1999

The Law Concerning Summary Judgment The standard for granting summary judgment is well established. … Clearly, NYNEX was a “covered” company and, clearly, the three plaintiffs who survived the motions were “covered” employees, entitled to protection under the Act.

In re Facebook, Inc.

288 F.R.D. 26 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 6, 2012

Both firms are well-qualified and experienced to serve as lead counsel to the class and are therefore appointed co-lead counsel in the Securities Action. … As the NASDAQ Defendants also point out, all of the actions will be subject to common defenses, including the threshold defense that self-regulatory organizations like NASDAQ are immune from suit for claims such as those

B & G PLASTICS, INC. v. Eastern Creative Industries, Inc.

269 F. Supp. 2d 450 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 3, 2003

The Report’s recommendations in this matter are certainly not clearly erroneous. … However, it is necessary that the inventor apply “knowledge clearly present in the prior art.” Id.

Smith v. Ware

District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 26, 2019

Finally, with respect to Ware’s qualified immunity arguments (Dkt. … No. 29 at 7-8), the disposition of a Section 1983 claim on grounds “that there was probable cause for the arrest . . . subsumes the issue of immunity,” Singer, 63 F.3d at 118, and the Court thus declines to separately

Oppenheimer & Co. v. Trans Energy, Inc.

946 F. Supp. 2d 343 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 23, 2013

Pursuant to Section (d) of the “Compensation” provision of the Agreement (“Section (d)”), the parties agreed that if the Company consummated a qualifying financial transaction during the term of Oppenheimer’s engagement, … Whether or not it was, however, it was clearly “senior debt” under Section d(i), as the contractual language clearly provides that it was secured by priority liens.

Dugar v. Coughlin

613 F. Supp. 849 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 11, 1985

Prisoners have a well established right of access to the courts, which prison regulation must not “unjustifiably obstruct.” See, e.g., Procunier v. … This is clearly rationally related to the purposes and goals of the TRP. Indeed, the regulations provide that the Committee may consider an applicant’s performance in programs.

United States v. Yonkers Board of Education

635 F. Supp. 1538 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 13, 1986

The student and parent will be provided with information clearly outlining the schools’ programs, expectations, and course requirements. … If a student cannot be accepted immediately after review, an otherwise qualified student will be placed on a priority waiting list.

Tronox Inc. v. Anadarko Petroleum Corp. (In re Tronox Inc.)

549 B.R. 21 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 1, 2016

The chart clearly shows it did not exist during the period of the Avoca Plant’s operations. … Judge Gropper’s findings of liability against Kerr-McGee Corp. in the Adversary Proceeding clearly do not qualify.

In Re Chaus Securities Litigation

801 F. Supp. 1257 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 1, 1992

Under Chevron, for a rule to qualify for prospective-only application, a court must determine (1) whether the new rule “establishes] a new principle of law either by overruling clear past precedent on which litigants may … As such, Ceres clearly adopted a new rule. Id.

MetLife, Inc. v. Metropolitan National Bank

388 F. Supp. 2d 223 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 22, 2005

In addition, when considering the validity of a survey, the court should consider whether 1.) the survey questions were clear and not leading, 2.) the survey was conducted by qualified persons, and 3.) the survey was conducted … Nevertheless, the financial services industry is not immune from the Lanham Act because of the sophistication of its consumers. See Lexington Mgt. Corp. v.

Mahulawde v. Fashion Institute of Technology

District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 4, 2022

A corporate employee or agent who does not qualify as an officer, director, or managing agent is not subject to deposition by notice.” Schindler Elevator Corp. v. … Kekana and her associate, Jerilee Fonseca, are immune to any discovery requests because they are somehow shielded by the so-called self-critical analysis privilege.

Affymetrix, Inc. v. PE CORP.

306 F. Supp. 2d 363 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 28, 2004

Rather, the non-moving party must produce specific facts sufficient to establish the existence of a genuine issue of fact. See Celotex Corp. v. … The A020 reference clearly qualified the specified method of producing the silica gel, and not the idea of using the gel to begin with.