Case law

Virtual Countries, Inc. v. Republic of South Africa

148 F. Supp. 2d 256 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 18, 2001

Defendants are Immune from Suit Under the FSIA 1. … The Court finds that Paley’s allegations are insufficient to establish the requisite direct effect under Section 1605(a)(2).

Bio/Basics International Corp. v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp.

545 F. Supp. 1106 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 23, 1982

The services that Bio/Basics customarily makes available to a client for this purpose include: (1) locating “clinical investigators” who are qualified and willing to engage in testing new therapeutic substances; (2) furnishing … Radcliff Materials, Inc., 451 U.S. 630, 640 , 101 S.Ct. 2061, 2066 , 68 L.Ed.2d 500 (1981). 3 The immunity issue raised by this case clearly does not fall in the first of these categories.

Citizens Committee for the Hudson Valley v. Volpe

297 F. Supp. 809 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 3, 1969

The most recent learning, however, holds that a state can waive its immunity from suit in federal courts by knowingly and clearly entering an area regulated, pursuant to its constitutional authority, by Congress. … But the court in Parden , although considering its broad approach to the doctrine of sovereign immunity, nevertheless clearly held that it did not reject the doctrine of sovereign immunity in cases in which a state merely

C & a Carbone, Inc. v. Town of Clarkstown

770 F. Supp. 848 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 11, 1991

The issue considered in City of Columbia was whether there is a “conspiracy” exception to the rule that any action that qualifies as a state action or an authorized implementation of a state policy is automatically thereby … The importance to the movant of demonstrating clearly and convincingly exactly why money damages are inadequate cannot be overstated. See, e.g., Rondeau v.

Travis v. Village of Dobbs Ferry

355 F. Supp. 2d 740 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 8, 2005

Even violations of clearly established constitutional rights may be shielded by qualified immunity if it was objectively reasonable for the public official to believe that his acts were lawful. … Longworth, Gelardi and Bailey are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Kurt Orban Company v. S/S CLYMENIA

318 F. Supp. 1387 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 20, 1970

No award shall be questioned or invalidated on the ground that any of the Arbitrators is not qualified as above, unless objection to his acting be taken before the award is made.” 2 (Emphasis added.) … The Shippers are to be entitled to the benefits of the privileges, rights and immunities conferred upon the Shipper, and the Shipowners are to be entitled to the benefit of the privileges, rights and immunities conferred

Jamieson v. Poughkeepsie City School District

195 F. Supp. 2d 457 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 20, 2002

“A school official is entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 action insofar as his conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitu *471 tional rights of which a reasonable person would have known, … or even where the rights were clearly established, if it was objectively reasonable to believe that his acts did not violate those rights.”

Gemini Shipping, Inc. v. Foreign Trade Organization for Chemicals & Foodstuffs

496 F. Supp. 256 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 15, 1980

The plaintiff has been permitted to conduct discovery to establish the contacts on which it seeks to base jurisdiction over the defendants. … Accordingly, since none of the exceptions to the Immunities Act is applicable here, the motion of the defendants to dismiss the amended complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act

Borrelli v. Secretary of Treasury

343 F. Supp. 2d 249 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 16, 2004

They were established as “qualified trust[s] within the meaning of § 401(a) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 401 (a),” thereby entitling their “members and retirees to exemptions from taxes under 26 U.S.C. § 501 … This, according to plaintiffs, clearly illustrates the non-discretionary nature of the federal defendants’ duty to disqualify the pension funds from their tax-exempt status.

In Re Grand Jury Subpoena Dated November 9, 1979

484 F. Supp. 1099 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 13, 1980

The burden of establishing the existence of an attorney-client relationship rests on the party asserting the privilege. United States v. … The subpoenaed firm did not establish that Roe sought the associate out for the purpose of obtaining advice.

Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001 v. Al Qaida

122 F. Supp. 3d 181 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 14, 2015

from the State Department,” the court “must *187 determine Svhether the ground of immunity is one which it is the established policy of the State Department to recognize’”); Rishikof v. … is the established policy of the State Department to recognize claims of immunity of this type.”

Howard v. Cronk

526 F. Supp. 1227 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 30, 1981

immunity granted to prison officials in Procunier v. … Such alleged negligence of the correction officer is clearly within the protection of the qualified immunity established for prison guards in Procunier v.

Thomas v. Kelly

903 F. Supp. 2d 237 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 23, 2012

Thus, asking the now-proposed special interrogatories would not have aided the Court’s qualified immunity inquiry. … Because qualified immunity is not an opportunity for defendants to have the jury revisit reasonable verdicts, the Court found that this question would not aid the qualified immunity inquiry.

Williams v. Keane

940 F. Supp. 566 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 13, 1996

Furthermore, qualified immunity protects defendants from liability for damages in their individual capacity. … Qualified immunity shields government employees from liability for conduct which is objectively reasonable and “does not violate clearly established ... constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

Rudow v. City of New York

642 F. Supp. 1456 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 3, 1986

If it was, then clearly it would have no res judicata effect. … Pembaur establishes that “policy” need not be in the form of written standards and regulations.

Augustyniak v. Koch

588 F. Supp. 793 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 17, 1984

In addition, a second reason necessitates dismissal of the action as against these defendants; these individuals are entitled to a good faith qualified immunity that has not been overridden by plaintiff’s submissions in opposition … Duci, 104 Misc.2d 498 , 428 N.Y.S.2d 772 (1976) (may- or has at least qualified, if not absolute immunity for press conference statements), with Clark v.

Gutierrez v. Vergari

499 F. Supp. 1040 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 16, 1980

Ministerial conduct enjoys only a qualified immunity which will be triggered if the court clerk shows that his or her conduct was done in good faith, pursuant to the lawful authority vested in him or her by the state. … There, the court held that a prosecutor’s post-arrest press conferences and television interviews are protected only by a qualified immunity. Id. at 633 .

Reed International Trading Corp. v. Donau Bank AG

866 F. Supp. 750 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 30, 1994

First, Vnesheconombank asserts that, as a bank organized pursuant to the laws of the Russian Federation it qualifies as an “agency or instrumentality of a foreign state” within the meaning of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities … Act (the “FSIA”), and is, therefore, immune from suit in courts of the United States.

Fate v. Charles

24 F. Supp. 3d 337 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 5, 2014

Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct did not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Summary judgment based upon qualified immunity is appropriate if, even on the plaintiffs version of the facts, the defendants did not violate clearly established law. Timmins v.

Stamm v. Barclays Bank of New York

960 F. Supp. 724 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 26, 1997

Lloyd’s did not inform plaintiffs that Parliament had granted Lloyd’s qualified immunity from suit by Names in English courts. 5. … Plaintiffs then claim that, had Lloyd’s informed them of their potential liability, and of Lloyd’s qualified immunity from suit by Names in English courts, they would not have assented to the FS and COL clauses of the New