Case law

Petito v. Puritan's Pride, Inc.

35 F. Supp. 3d 494 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 31, 2014

may be established by analytic reasoning. … to establish an invention’s therapeutic utility.”

Congregation Rabbinical College of Tartikov, Inc. v. Village of Pomona

280 F. Supp. 3d 426 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 7, 2017

This same flier states that “[t]he single most important issue facing the Village is clearly the Tartikoff development.” (Id.) … In WDS II, the Second Circuit “expressed doubt as to whether RLUIPA immunize[s] all conceivable improvements by religious schools.” 504 F.3d at 347 .

Caroline Van Wagner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wellness Pet Co., Inc., et al.

District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 5, 2026

“The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing these elements.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561. … Scalia and Garner call this rule the “series qualifier canon”—but it has exceptions. Id.

Carroll v. Trump

District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 25, 2024

Richardson-Merrell, Inc. — the first Second Circuit case really to discuss the issue for unintentional tort cases — the court held that punitive damages in such cases “must be clearly established.” 378 F.2d 832, … Moreover, the Roginsky panel explicitly noted defamation as an exception to the “clearly established” standard for punitive damages, again relying on earlier Court of Appeals cases instead of the more recent Corrigan

Cohen v. United States

999 F. Supp. 2d 650 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 28, 2014

Thus, the Cohens need to show that 8C was used by them for an additional 12 months in order to qualify for the Section 121 exclusion. … The Government points out that the regulation states that “[i]n establishing whether a taxpayer has satisfied the 2-year use requirement, occupancy of the residence is required.” 26 C.F.R. § 1.121 -l(c)(2).

In re Investment Technology Group, Inc. Securities Litigation

251 F. Supp. 3d 596 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 26, 2017

The statements at issue here are sufficiently definite and, moreover, related to “the heart” of ITG’s business to qualify as actionable. … [C]ertainly any nuance to our model we feel absolutely compelled to communicate very clearly and very transparently.”).)

Murray v. The Dutchess County Department of Public Works

District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 25, 2019

Yet, Defendants merely restate the qualified immunity caselaw without meaningfully applying it to the facts of the case. … The Court therefore declines to consider at this time whether any Defendant is protected by qualified immunity.

United States v. Barnason

852 F. Supp. 2d 367 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 10, 2012

, the parties disagree concerning whether the acts alleged in the present action constitute “sexual assault.” *373 According to the Defendants, because the sexual acts the Government alleges were consensual, they do not qualify … also Martinez, 608 F.3d at 60 (citing Larson and noting that some circuits “have instructed district courts to apply Rule 403 less stringently, at least in some cases, to avoid having Rule 403 swallow evidence Congress clearly

Lasky v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.

631 F. Supp. 962 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 5, 1986

George Hand stated that he hired Mundel to chair the art department because she was highly qualified. … “As would be natural in a case establishing a new principle, the Edwards opinion did not attempt precise definition of its contours.

Rockland Medilabs, Inc. v. Perales

719 F. Supp. 1191 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 18, 1989

a whole range of government benefits and awards comprising what Professor Reich broadly referenced as the government’s largess, including licenses, permits, contracts, subsidies, public assistance, and the like, may now qualify … It is well established, however, that “[p]rocess is not an end in itself.” Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 250 , 103 S.Ct. 1741, 1748 , 75 L.Ed.2d 813 (1983).

United States v. Aluminum Co. of America

35 F. Supp. 820 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 15, 1940

It is agreed by both sides, and I am convinced, that the witnesses are thoroughly qualified experts on subjects relating to bauxite. There is, and there should be, no criticism of their capacity. … Clearly, as was held, this was error.

Eskimo Pie Corporation v. Whitelawn Dairies, Inc.

284 F. Supp. 987 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 16, 1968

The effect of admitting such testimony in the absence of some showing of ambiguity would be to permit a party to substitute his view of his obligations for those clearly stated. … absence of a qualifying context, custom, usage or similar surrounding circumstance.

Sheerbonnet, Ltd. v. American Express Bank, Ltd.

905 F. Supp. 127 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 24, 1995

(“Sheerbon-net”) is a British trading company which contracted in 1990 to sell troop carriers to the Hady Establishment (“Hady”), a Saudi Arabian company. … "Silence is the immune system the draftpersons gave to the body of Article 4A.

United States v. Gotti

457 F. Supp. 2d 411 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 16, 2006

The analysis of the money laundering charge turns on the terms of the indictments and 1999 plea agreement, and is clearly a question of law, capable of determination “without the trial of the general issue.” 82 Even viewing … racketeering over a decade ago (not to mention any cases where there was an intervening indictment and plea during that decade). 108 The purpose of the statute of limitations — to protect against stale prosecutions — is clearly

Collins v. Christopher

48 F. Supp. 2d 397 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 25, 1999

To establish a First Amendment violation, the employee must establish first that she was engaged in protected First Amendment conduct or that her speech involved a matter of public concern, Frank v. … For example, the discharge of an employee is clearly an adverse employment action. See Connick, 461 U.S. 138 , 103 S.Ct. 1684 ; Rankin v.

Williams v. Salerno

622 F. Supp. 1271 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 28, 1985

History of the Case In September and October, 1983, approximately 450 students enrolled at the State University of New York at Purchase, New York (“SUNY-Purchase”) sought to qualify to vote as residents of Purchase. … Furthermore, as Thomas Zolezzi — whose interpretation of the New York Election Law is entitled to some deference — views the law, once Board policy has been established, it cannot be changed except by majority vote of the

Pierre v. Napolitano

958 F. Supp. 2d 461 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 24, 2013

In order to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under either the ADEA or the Rehabilitation Act, a plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) that he is a member of the class protected by the statute, (2) that he is qualified … For purposes of this motion, I shall assume that plaintiff can establish that he is a member of a protected class for purposes of both the Rehabilitation Act and the ADEA and that he was qualified for the position he held

McNeil-PPC, Inc. v. Perrigo Co.

516 F. Supp. 2d 238 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 3, 2007

Sofamor Danek Group, 253 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed.Cir.2001). “[0]ne does not qualify as a joint inventor merely by assisting the actu al inventor after conception of the claimed invention.” Ethicon, Inc. v. … Roche clearly anticipated using an impermeable coating to mask famotidine's taste. 7 .

Carter v. Uhler

District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 26, 2022

Furthermore, to qualify as “clearly established Federal law” within the meaning of AEDPA, the law in question must be “‘embodied ina Supreme Court holding, framed at the appropriate level of generality.’” Garlick v. … Again, Carter fails to argue what clearly established federal law compels this result.

Salis v. American Export Lines

566 F. Supp. 2d 216 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 30, 2008

May 11, 1995) (“Congress has clearly preempted state law through COGSA in defining the relationship between ocean carriers and cargo interests.”); see also National Auto. Publ’ns, Inc. v. … The Himalaya Clause provides, in relevant part, that “every exemption, limitation ... exemption from liability, defense and immunity of whatsoever nature applicable to the Carrier ... shall also be available and shall extend