Case law

PICCOLI A/S v. Calvin Klein Jeanswear Co.

19 F. Supp. 2d 157 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 8, 1998

evidences an intent to permit enforcement by the third party.” 28 Piccoli manifestly does not qualify as an intended third-party beneficiary under the first prong of the test. … Piceoli’s allegations clearly are insufficient to establish Azteca’s direct liability for unfair competition.

In Re Joint Eastern & Southern Dist. Asbestos Lit.

827 F. Supp. 1014 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 23, 1993

In re Swine Flu Immunization Prod. Liab. … That is clearly too drastic in light of Justice Freedman's analysis: The noneconomic awards in Didner were reduced, not set aside.

VDP PATENT, LLC v. Welch Allyn Holdings, Inc.

623 F. Supp. 2d 414 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 24, 2008

On the other hand, the “statutory requirement of particularity and distinctness in claims is met only when [the claims] clearly distinguish what is claimed from what went before in the art and clearly circumscribe what is … Plaintiff's proposed experts’ declarations do not clearly establish that the experts actually satisfy plaintiff's own definition, as these otolaryngologists do not specifically claim to "regularly direct the removal of ear

COMMITTEE FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION & RELIG. LIB. v. Nyquist

350 F. Supp. 655 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 10, 1972

Each qualifying school which seeks an apportionment is required to submit to the Commissioner an application which shall include an audited statement of the expenditures of maintenance and repair of such qualifying school … It, nevertheless, struck down what were clearly economic measures to help the fiscal condition of the nonpublic schools with the possible consequence of forced absorption of their burdens by the States.

Algarin v. NYC Health + Hospitals Corporation

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

To establish a prima facie case of discrimination, a plaintiff must plead that (1) he is a member of a protected class, (2) he was qualified for his position, (3) he suffered an adverse employment action, and (4) he has … Plaintiff finally does not allege that he qualifies for a medical exemption.

Otero v. New York City Housing Authority

344 F. Supp. 737 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 23, 1972

It appears that there were 1852 families qualifying as “site residents” when the urban renewal project began. … And it is forbidden by the Establishment of Religion Clause of the First Amendment as applied to the States through the Fourteenth.

Minor v. Harris

556 F. Supp. 1371 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 4, 1983

In qualifying this statement he seems literally to have told the jury it was their “job” to find the defendant guilty: I don’t say he’s guilty of any of them because that’s not my job. That’s your job. … The evidence established that Landsberg was robbed by four black youths.

Morales v. Portuondo

154 F. Supp. 2d 706 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 24, 2001

established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d). … In addition, for the reasons set forth below, applying the standards set forth in AEDPA, I conclude that the state court’s decision to exclude Fornes’s statements was contrary to clearly established federal law as interpreted

Barletta v. Superintendent

District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 1, 2025

“Applying AEDPA deference, a federal court may grant a writ of habeas corpus if the state court’s adjudication on the merits ‘was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established, Federal … The Supreme Court has “clearly established” that a criminal defendant has a constitutional right to “a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.” Crane v.

Rodriguez v. Schweiker

520 F. Supp. 666 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 28, 1981

Since she was employed after this date and was able to work until December 1975, she did not qualify for disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act. After reviewing Ms. … Rodriguez in connection with her request to reopen her case are clearly material to her disability claim.

Emanuele v. Town of Greenville

143 F. Supp. 2d 325 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 8, 2001

The question of who qualifies as a final policymaker is one of state law. See City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 112, 123 , 108 S.Ct. 915 , 99 L.Ed.2d 107 (1988) (citing Pembaur v. … Clearly McDonald fired me on the radio because I was the co-chair of the Democratic Committee and I publicly expressed my refusal to endorse him for re-election." (L. Emanuele Aff. at ¶ 9.) (emphasis added).

Murphey v. Hillwood Villa Associates

411 F. Supp. 287 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 21, 1976

Plaintiffs are clearly passive investors in an enterprise which, by agreement, has been managed wholly by defendants Karr and Gaines as general partners. … It is true that in order to sustain the analogy with the forced sale situation, the forfeiture must qualify as a “sale” within the meaning of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5.

Dean v. Westchester County P.R.C.

309 F. Supp. 2d 587 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 18, 2004

However, while depression can qualify as a “mental impairment” under *594 the ADA, “a medical diagnosis of depression is not the ‘sin qua non’ of having an ADA disability.” Menes v. … Clearly, in listing working and sleeping, Mr. Dean has identified significant life activities.

Cromer Finance Ltd. v. Berger

205 F.R.D. 113 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 27, 2001

Both Hackl and Meijer-Werner have displayed knowledge sufficient to qualify them as adequate class representatives. … The Rule 23(b)(3) inquiry “trains on the legal or factual questions that qualify each class member’s case as a genuine controversy ...

Avila v. ACACIA Network, Inc.

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

It provides that “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or … Town of Greenburgh, 535 F.3d 71, 76 (2d Cir. 2008) (“Regardless of the factual context, [courts] have required a plaintiff alleging retaliation to establish speech protected by the First Amendment.”).

Association for Molecular Pathology v. United States Patent & Trademark Office

702 F. Supp. 2d 181 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 5, 2010

6-thioguanine to a subject having said immune-mediated gastrointestinal disorder; and *234 (b) determining the level of 6-thiogua-nine in said subject having said immune-mediated gastrointestinal disorder, wherein the level … Buscaglia, 134 F.3d 1185, 1189 (2d Cir.1998) (quoting Learned Hand on the rationale for qualified immunity). See also, Remarks of the Honorable John M. Wallcer, Jr.

Pentech International, Inc. v. Hayduchok

931 F. Supp. 1167 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 30, 1996

The established profitability of the product made under the patent; its commercial success; and its current popularity. 9. … The opinion testimony of qualified experts. 15.

In re the Complaint of Ta Chi Navigation (Panama) Corp.

574 F. Supp. 418 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 26, 1983

What the Court stated in its original opinion were, and remain, its conclusions based upon a preponderance of the evidence clearly sufficient to satisfy the cargo claimants’ burden of proof of establishing not only unseaworthiness … Both witnesses were well qualified. 12 Rushbrook first testified on petitioner’s prima facie case and was recalled on its rebuttal case.

Fuller v. Schultz

572 F. Supp. 2d 425 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 27, 2008

A decision is “contrary to ... clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court” “if the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by [the Supreme] Court on a question of law or if the … A decision is “an unreasonable application of[ ] clearly established Federal law” when “the state court’s application of clearly established federal law was objectively unreasonable.” Id. at 409 , 120 S.Ct. 1495 .

Barbosa v. Continuum Health Partners, Inc.

716 F. Supp. 2d 210 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 8, 2010

evidentiary framework that applies to Title VII and ADEA claims. 57 In order to state a prima facie case of race or age discrimination, a plaintiff must show that: (1) she was a member of a protected class, (2) she was qualified … She clearly alleges that she had been a “joint-employee” of Jacob Perlow, Beth Israel, and Continuum Health, and that Continuum Health operated, managed, and controlled Jacob Perlow and Beth Israel.