Case law

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.

Barbizon Corp. v. ILGWU National Retirement Fund

667 F. Supp. 994 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 10, 1987

The definition supplied by the House Ways and Means committee was “an economic unit, generally at a single physical location.” 31 Although a facility will often consist of a single physical plant, Congress clearly contemplated … Accordingly, § 1397(a)(1) only applies to collective bargaining agreements which establish an obligation to contribute.

Janczuk v. United States

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

Court must dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint, or any portion of the complaint, that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … [ ] The USA establishes an evidentiary basis for stalking and otherwise that is founded upon concretes acquired during investigation.

Beaman v. New York City

District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 28, 2024

The Court must dismiss an IFP complaint, or portion thereof, that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … Supp. 2d 400, 432 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (“Persons who are qualified to receive welfare benefits have a legitimate claim of entitlement to such benefits.”).

Gonzalez v. Bad Boy Entertainment

District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 13, 2024

The burden of establishing standing to sue rests with the party bringing the action. See Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992). … Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434, 437 (2d Cir. 1998) (“An action is frivolous when either: (1) the factual contentions are clearly baseless . . . ; or (2) the claim is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory

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.”).)

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.

Candelaria v. Coughlin

787 F. Supp. 368 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 17, 1992

Section 1983 imposes liability for conduct carried out under the color of state law which deprives a plaintiff of “rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.” 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . … McMillan, the standard establishing an Eighth Amendment violation varies according to the type of conduct alleged. See Hudson v. McMillan, 112 S.Ct. at 998 .

Packard v. The City Of New York

District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 25, 2020

The Second Circuit emphasized that, just “because a witness qualifies as an expert with respect to certain matters or areas of knowledge, it by no means follows that he or she is qualified to express expert opinions as … And “[p]olice training, policies, and procedures . . . are clearly complex areas outside common experience.” Vazquez, 2014 WL 4388497, at *13 (internal quotation marks, citation, and alterations omitted).

United States v. Bayless

921 F. Supp. 211 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 1, 1996

Determinations of credibility are reviewed only for an abuse of discretion; “[w]here there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder’s choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous.” Anderson v. … The standards for a Terry-type investigative stop and what qualifies as a reasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment were spelled out in detail in the January 22, 1996 Decision and Order of this Court, Bayless

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.

Melville v. Jiha

District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 17, 2020

The Court must dismiss a complaint, or portion thereof, that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434, 437 (2d Cir. 1998) (“[A]n action is ‘frivolous’ when either: (1) the factual contentions are clearly baseless . . . ; or (2) the claim is based on an indisputably meritless legal

Rivervale Realty v. Town of Orangetown, NY

816 F. Supp. 937 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 29, 1993

Even if Rivervale’s claims were immune from the final decision requirement, under the second prong of the Williamson ripeness inquiry Rivervale’s failure to seek compensation renders premature nearly all of its Fifth and … Consequently, Rivervale has not established a triable issue of material fact with regard to its claim of futility. See Xikis v. The City of New York, 1990 WL 156155 , at 6 (E.D.N.Y.)

Amalgamated Clothing & Textile Workers Union v. J. P. Stevens & Co.

475 F. Supp. 482 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 3, 1979

(“LMRA”), established national policy favoring collective bargaining, forbade various employer practices and labor practices as unfair, and set up the NLRB as the enforcement agency. … regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities

Ruby v. American Airlines, Inc.

227 F. Supp. 674 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 12, 1963

For each air line, the fundamental unit is the Local Council, one of which is established at each important base of the air line. … All three may be qualified pilots, provided one has a flight engineer’s certificate, or it is sufficient that two only are qualified pilots and that the third holds a flight engineer’s certificate without pilot qualifications

Littlehale v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co.

268 F. Supp. 791 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 11, 1966

The authorities hereinbefore cited clearly exclude plaintiffs from the “orbit of danger” and absolve defendant of any duty to them. … It appears that such a defense, absolving the manufacturer of all responsibility, would arise only if the Government itself were held to be immune from liability.

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.

Architectronics, Inc. v. Control Systems, Inc.

935 F. Supp. 425 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 16, 1996

Because at least some portion of plaintiff’s copyright claim clearly is not time-barred, summary judgment on that claim on statute of limitations grounds is not warranted. IV. … Computer programming codes generally qualify as copyrightable subject matter. Computer Associates Int’l, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 982 F.2d 693, 702 (2d Cir.1992).

Galella v. Onassis

533 F. Supp. 1076 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 2, 1982

To establish himself as the peerless photographer who could capture the comings and goings and doings of Mrs. … In short, Galella has clearly challenged the Court.

BLT Restaurant Group LLC v. Tourondel

855 F. Supp. 2d 4 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 22, 2012

That in turn would depend on their establishing that section 8.11 was unambiguous in this respect or, even if ambiguous, that its *28 meaning was established beyond dispute by parol or equivalent evidence. … We should note that the case law in this area is not clearly settled. The Lanham Act provides that an action for trademark infringement may only be brought by the "registrant" of the trademark. 15 U.S.C. § 1114 (1).