Case law

Weissman v. United States

599 F. Supp. 1366 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 20, 1984

Weekends provided some peace because I felt that only then was I immune from the chance that a phone call would come telling me that all had been, discovered. … This record does not support such a claim. 4 On the contrary, the record reveals a sophisticated, well-advised and fully comprehending defendant who pled guilty to clearly established crimes, but now repents of his plea because

Kessler v. Grand Cent. Dist. Management Ass'n, Inc.

960 F. Supp. 760 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 27, 1997

Code §§ 25-401 to 25-417 provide statutory authority for the establishment and operation of BIDs in New York City. … The voting scheme of which Plaintiffs complain is clearly stated in the GCDMA Bylaws and in New York City and New York State law. See Joint Stip., Ex. I ¶ 1; GML § 980-m(b); Admin. Code § 25-414(b).

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

McGrath v. Dominican College of Blauvelt, New York

672 F. Supp. 2d 477 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 25, 2009

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 … Where it is alleged that an impartial investigation was subverted and where such an investigation might have established whether or not Ms.

Consolidated Edison, Inc. v. Northeast Utilities

318 F. Supp. 2d 181 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 15, 2004

NU’s reading also ignores subsections (b) and (c), which qualify subsection (a) and help to make it clear that § 8-302(a) is a statement of the shelter rule. B. … Co., 602 F.Supp. at 936-41 (involving trust indenture with clearly established mechanism for distributing interest payments to current bondholders in case of default).

United States v. Kassar

582 F. Supp. 2d 488 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 14, 2008

As to the second defense, defendants, as already discussed, have utterly failed to meet their heavy burden of establishing outrageous conduct. … Thus, this statute, on its face, is clearly aimed at the Government’s right to defend itself, and unquestionably prohibits a “crime against the United States Government.”

Major League Baseball Properties, Inc. v. Opening Day Productions, Inc.

385 F. Supp. 2d 256 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 10, 2005

As the Supreme Court has stated, “it is common ground that § 43(a) protects qualifying unregistered trademarks and that the general principles qualifying a mark for registration under § 2 of the Lanham Act are for the most … Whether a mark qualifies for § 43(a) protection depends on its classification within the system established by Judge Friendly in Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Hunting World, Inc., 537 F.2d 4, 9 (2d Cir.1976).

In Re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (Mtbe) Products

739 F. Supp. 2d 576 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 7, 2010

Juror No. 8, who clearly obtained improper information during Phase III deliberations was immediately excused after the Court learned of his misconduct. … This provision offers them immunity from claims that the additive is defective in design or manufacture.

Michael Grecco Photography, Inc. v. Everett Collection, Inc.

589 F. Supp. 2d 375 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 9, 2008

“The Copyright Act grants the copyright holder ‘exclusive’ rights to use and to authorize the use of his work in [six] qualified ways” under 17 U.S.C. § 106 . Sony Corp. of Am. v. … This is clearly and unambiguously an exclusive license. However, the license is no longer in force.

Ross v. Saltmarsh

521 F. Supp. 753 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 25, 1981

This Circuit has established a two-step procedure to be followed in the calculation of such [attorneys’ fee] awards. … Yohalem’s calculation, some 30-odd hours and by mine, 40 hours, to establish a notion of what you wanted, and having established that notion, assigned it to paralegals and junior counsel?

Agence France Presse v. Morel

934 F. Supp. 2d 547 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 14, 2013

The terms of the agreement, however, must “clearly manifest” an intent to benefit the third party. … In order to qualify for the OCILLA safe harbors, a party must meet a set of threshold criteria.

Condec Corp. v. Farley

573 F. Supp. 1382 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 21, 1983

In any event, such uncertainty clearly does not constitute irreparable harm under the Williams Act. … inappropriate for this Court, in the present state of the record and without the appearance before it of any authorized representative of the beneficiaries of the Master Trust (other than Farley and Vrba, who would hardly qualify

Williams v. Sullivan

775 F. Supp. 615 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 25, 1991

Although the Second Circuit remanded the case for the Secretary to consider what role residual functional capacity should play in determining a widow’s claim, id. at 272 , it was clearly of the view that residual functional … (ii) attorney fees shall not be awarded in excess of $75 per hour unless the court determines that an increase in the cost of living or a special factor, such as the limited availability of qualified attorneys for the proceedings

Board of Trustees v. Bank of New York Mellon Corp.

287 F.R.D. 216 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 16, 2012

They seem clearly to have the ability and the financial resources either to join this litigation or to institute individual lawsuits. See Stoudt v. E.F. Hutton & Co. … “Class-wide issues predominate if resolution of some of the legal or factual questions that qualify each class member’s case as a genuine controversy can be achieved through generalized proof, and if these particular issues

Tullo v. City of Mount Vernon

237 F. Supp. 2d 493 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 19, 2002

The procedures governing the discipline of Department members are established by Interim Orders 10/96 and 4/96. … In both answers, defendants denied the *499 allegations and asserted the affirmative defense of qualified immunity as to the individual defendants.

United States v. Wei Heng Lee

862 F. Supp. 1129 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 13, 1994

Whether the government will be able to establish the truth of the allegations is a question which will await trial. … This opinion and order, like the papers submitted on the motion, refers to SI except where otherwise clearly stated. 2 .

United States v. Ethyl Gasoline Corporation

27 F. Supp. 959 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 19, 1939

No immunity is conferred by the fact that the article whose price is being regulated is a patented product. Bauer & Cie v. … This provision of the refiner license agreements clearly is in restraint of trade.

Stardust, Inc. v. Weiss

79 F. Supp. 274 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 7, 1948

Judge Learned Hand clearly set forth this doctrine in Emerson Electric Mfg. Co. v. Emerson Radio & Phonograph Corporation, 2 Cir., 105 F.2d 908, 911 . … Further proof to establish confusing similiarity between the marks, consisted of the testimony of paid shoppers who, after suit was started, visited a number of retail stores in various parts of the country.

Farina v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 3, 2020

The Producing Party shall at all times carry the initial burden of establishing that the contested information merits a “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential—Outside Counsel Only” designation. 12. … b)(5)(B) and Federal Rule of Evidence 502, in the event a Producing Party inadvertently discloses information subject to the attorney-client privilege, attorney work-product doctrine, or other applicable privilege or immunity

Wausau Business Insurance v. Sentosa Care LLC

10 F. Supp. 3d 444 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 28, 2014

These declarations clearly and convincingly show each calculation. … Martens’s Reply Declaration and exhibits clearly show her methodology in conducting the audits.