Case law

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.

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.

Papyrus Technology Corp. v. New York Stock Exchange, LLC

653 F. Supp. 2d 402 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 2, 2009

Thus, the necessity of an audit trail and one manner of providing it was clearly known at the time of application. … The court also notes that the promotion video bears no clear time stamp establishing the date of creation.

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.

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.

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.

Wade v. Rodriguez

District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 10, 2024

Wade objects to this conclusion by asserting that New York has waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity, and that Congress has abrogated sovereign immunity. These arguments fail. … The Court finds that the Report’s recommendation is not only not facially erroneous—it is clearly correct—and adopts that recommendation.

Phoenix Four, Inc. v. Strategic Resources Corp.

446 F. Supp. 2d 205 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 1, 2006

This paucity of contacts falls far short of the showing required to establish The Bahamas as Phoenix’s principal place of business. … Setting aside the question of whether "Europe” qualifies as a state under Section 1332(c), it is well settled that a corporation may have only one worldwide principal place of business.

United States v. Devery

935 F. Supp. 393 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 29, 1996

For Juror no. 27, defendants might argue, bias was neither clearly expressed nor inevitable. … See 28 U.S.C. § 1866 (c)(3) (a qualified juror may be “excluded by the court on the ground that such person may be unable to render impartial jury service”).

United States v. 31 Photographs 4¾" X 7"

156 F. Supp. 350 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 31, 1957

That the libelled material will not be available to members of the general public, but “will be held under security conditions * * * for the sole use of the Institute staff members or of qualified scholars engaged in bona … Of course, a motion for summary judgment cannot be defeated by a simple declaration that the opponent does not concede the facts which are clearly established by the movant’s affidavits.

Hall v. City of White Plains

185 F. Supp. 2d 293 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 25, 2002

The Court concluded that to allow evidence of a single incident to establish inadequate training, without any proof relating to the nature of the training itself, would “unduly threaten [a municipality’s] immunity from respondeat … This claim is clearly legally insufficient, and will be dismissed sua sponte on the pleadings. Prima facie tort is a disfavored claim under New York law.

Merola v. National Railroad Passenger Corp.

683 F. Supp. 935 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 12, 1988

However, Judge Levet’s conclusion that it was separate from the employment dispute addressed by the Board clearly points to the analogous conclusion that the dispute in Brady , like the one presented here, did not raise the … issues of contractual interpretation that Congress intended to leave to the adjudicative boards established by the RLA.

Vieira v. United States

District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 17, 2019

I found that defendant had “sufficiently demonstrated that prioritizing Work Orders at the West Point campus is clearly a discretionary function based upon policy considerations of operational needs, regulatory mandates … Where “the nonmoving party bears the burden of proof at trial, summary judgment is warranted if the nonmovant fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to [its] case.”

Pan Am Corp. v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.

175 B.R. 438 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 23, 1994

The qualified immunity extends to conduct within the scope of the committee’s statutory or court-ordered authority. Philip v. L.F. Rothschild Holdings (In re L.F. … The Creditors Committee in the Pan Am case enjoyed a qualified immunity, as a matter of law.

Isaacs v. Bowen

683 F. Supp. 930 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 17, 1988

Some have expressed the concern that the hearing officers are not properly qualified or are not objective, because many of them are former employees of the carrier or because their continued service as hearing officers may … Congress sought “to resolve these concerns by establishing an appeals procedure under Part B that is modeled after that available under Part A.” Id. (emphasis added).

Gabilly v. City Of New York

District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 16, 2021

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

Delaney v. Bank of America Corp.

908 F. Supp. 2d 498 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 11, 2012

Prima Facie Case To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADEA, Delaney must demonstrate that: (1) he was within the protected group of employees (those over age 40); (2) he was qualified for the position … And BoA’s internal RIF documents clearly state that Delaney was chosen for termination for these reasons. See Honig Decl.

Abadi v. City of New York

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

Abadi states that his doctor told him that he “thus has natural immunity” and “he does not need to get the vaccine.” Jd 97. … Supp. 3d at 258 (“Plaintiffs’ right to an education under New York State law is limited by the New York’s mandatory school vaccination requirement, and ‘the case law clearly establishes that conditioning school enrollment

Moniodes v. Autonomy Capital (Jersey) LP

District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 11, 2021

And since the definition of “whistleblower” clearly required that an individual “provide . . . information . . . to the Commission,” the SEC could not interpret it to cover individuals such as the respondent, who had only … But under the Digital Realty reading of § 78u–6, subsection (b)(1)(ii) clearly incorporated F–9 through the statute’s whistleblower definition at § 78u–6(a)(6).

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