Case law

Tobias v. County of Putnam

191 F. Supp. 2d 364 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 14, 2002

reasonable “in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ ” when they acted. … Furthermore, the right at issue in the first and third instance was clearly established on July 7, 1999.

Spiro ex rel. Estate of Torres v. Healthport Technologies, LLC

73 F. Supp. 3d 259 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 29, 2014

Ackerman, 24 Misc.3d 275, 284 , 876 N.Y.S.2d 831 (NY.Sup.Ct.2009) (“[T]he statute clearly does not establish $0.75 per page as the reasonable cost of copying.”). … Taking the allegations in the FAC as true, the immunity provision does not shield defendants’ conduct from liability.

Washington Square Post No. 1212 v. City of New York

808 F. Supp. 264 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 31, 1992

immunity. … The Second Circuit found that the individual federal defendants were qualifiedly immune because there were no genuine issues of material fact in dispute with respect to whether, in light of clearly established law and the

United States Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Commission

367 F. Supp. 107 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 17, 1973

compact is entitled to eleventh amendment immunity is erroneous since in those cases, unlike the case sub judice, the compact establishing the authority or commission had been approved by Congress so that the compact’s validity … On the facts presented here, these cases are not in point and cannot be interpreted to establish the broad rule of governmental immunity defendants suggest.

Bartlett v. New York State Board of Law Examiners

970 F. Supp. 1094 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 3, 1997

Qualified Immunity In a recent opinion, the Second Circuit succinctly summarized the law of qualified immunity: Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity from claims for damages if (1) their conduct did not violate … Clearly Established Right As noted above, there is a three-prong test to determine whether a right was “clearly established” at the time of defendant’s conduct. See id.

Antic v. City of New York

273 F. Supp. 3d 445 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 27, 2017

That is because a law enforcement officer is entitled to qualified immunity if “arguable probable cause” existed—that is, if “a reasonable police officer in the same circumstances and possessing the same knowledge as the … Antic asserts that qualified immunity is available only with respect to his federal false arrest claim (Pl.’s Opp'n 11), but that is wrong.

Salahuddin v. Harris

684 F. Supp. 1224 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 27, 1988

Qualified Immunity In their November, 1986 motions, the defendants asserted that the First Amendment rights of prisoners were not clearly established at the time Salahuddin acted and thus that they should be shielded by their … qualified immunity.

Roe v. Johnson

334 F. Supp. 2d 415 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 1, 2004

It is “well-established that officials acting in a judicial capacity are entitled to absolute immunity against § 1983 actions, and this immunity acts as a complete shield to claims for money damages.” Montero v. … of disability, nor may a public entity establish requirements for the programs or activities of licensees or certified entities that subject qualified individuals with disabilities to discrimination on the basis of disability

Hynes v. LaBoy

887 F. Supp. 618 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 30, 1995

The Determination of the Qualified Immunity Defense Does Not Require a New Trial Shope and Cobb seek a new trial to require the Court to determine their qualified immunity defense. … Prison officials are entitled to qualified immunity unless: (1) their conduct violates a clearly established statutory or constitutional right; (2) they knew or should have known the right was clearly established; and (3)

Girard v. 94th Street and Fifth Avenue Corp.

396 F. Supp. 450 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 30, 1975

for failure to establish a conspiracy cognizable under the statute. … action involved in Shelley is clearly distinguishable from that presented here.

Heffernan v. Straub

612 F. Supp. 2d 313 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 30, 2009

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government agents from liability for their official actions, unless their conduct violates clearly established constitutional rights of which an objectively reasonable … Defendants’ arguments in favor of a grant of qualified immunity center exclusively around the issue of whether plaintiffs speech on April 20, 2005 was clearly established First Amendment speech.

Vidal v. Valentin

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

Government officials exercising discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity shielding them from damages in a § 1983 suit “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Supp. 2d 220, 245 (W.D.N.Y. 2002), “[e]ven if the right at issue was clearly established in certain respects, . . . an officer is still entitled to qualified immunity if officers of reasonable competence could disagree

In Re Buspirone Patent Litigation

185 F. Supp. 2d 363 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 14, 2002

Bristol-Myers argues that all of the claims arising out of the '365 Patent activities should be dismissed because patent owners enjoy a qualified immunity when they act in good faith to protect their patent rights. … These facts, if proven, would be sufficient to strip Bristol-Myers of any qualified patent immunity. IV.

Brenner v. Heavener

492 F. Supp. 2d 399 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 25, 2007

Qualified Immunity The Court’s analysis of the probable cause defense bears on the issue of whether Baner and Sager can properly *404 claim qualified immunity. … Accordingly, the Court denies the claim of qualified immunity. C. CONSPIRACY The Court finds that Brenner has not provided sufficient evidence to sustain a claim of conspiracy under § 1983.

Braka v. Bancomer, S.A.

589 F. Supp. 1465 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 20, 1984

The FSIA, however, places the burden on the defendant of establishing that it is entitled to sovereign immunity. See Report of *1468 House Judiciary Committee No. 94-1487, reprinted in 1976 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin. … The Second Circuit held that “[although the actions of Costa Rica affected commercial activity, Costa Rica was clearly acting as a sovereign in preventing a national fiscal disaster.”

Banco De Seguros Del Estado v. Mutual Marine Offices, Inc.

230 F. Supp. 2d 362 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 6, 2002

Immunities Act (“FSIA”). … Compagnie Belge D’Affretement, 668 F.Supp. 267, 272 (S.D.N.Y.1987) (confirming arbitrators’ interim order to establish jointly-held escrow account that was intended to establish “security for enforcement of an award in the

Henny v. New York State

842 F. Supp. 2d 530 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 30, 2012

To satisfy her burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination, a plaintiff must produce evidence that shows that: (1) she belongs to a protected class; (2) she was qualified for her position; (3) she suffered … Clearly, Patel wanted Abpaham -to have that shift.”).)

Star Lines, Ltd. v. Puerto Rico Maritime Shipping Authority

451 F. Supp. 157 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 3, 1978

laws established by the Supreme Court in Parker v. … Upon examination of the Act and its underlying purpose, the court concludes that PRMSA’s actions do not qualify for Parker immunity because they were neither compelled by the state acting as sovereign nor executed pursuant

Kern v. Oesterreichische Elektrizitaetswirtschaft AG

178 F. Supp. 2d 367 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 15, 2001

Of course, defendant must establish that it is entitled to dismissal. Here, plaintiffs have failed to prove that an FSIA exception applies. 2. … Analysis OE AG qualifies as a foreign state under section 1603 of the FSIA. 5 The Act provides that “foreign states” shall be immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1604 .

Group Health Inc. v. Blue Cross Ass'n

739 F. Supp. 921 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 19, 1990

I take a contrary view. *932 While it is clearly correct that one must be acting pursuant to government authorization in order to lay claim to official immunity, if the day to day decisionmaking were under the direct supervision … of some member of government, and that was what established official immunity for the private entity, then the discretionary decision-making prong of the test would be vitiated.