Case law

Thompson v. Li Ka-Shing

314 F. Supp. 2d 172 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 24, 2003

Plaintiffs argue that the complaint seeks not “to establish Clinton’s liability on the basis of such official actions [but on the basis of] purely private, unofficial acts of joining private actors in a conspiracy to commit … In the context of absolute (as opposed to qualified) immunity, the court held, “even conditional prosecutorial decisions” are protected from “ ‘any judicial scrutiny of the motive for and reasonableness of official action

D'OLIMPIO v. Crisafi

718 F. Supp. 2d 340 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 15, 2010

immunity. … For the foregoing reasons, under the facts alleged and the clearly established law cited herein, defendants lacked even arguable probable cause to arrest D’Olimpio.

Castillo v. Shipping Corp. of India

606 F. Supp. 497 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 23, 1985

For the reasons stated below, the Court is convinced that the defendant qualifies for the immunity provided by the FSIA. Therefore, its motion for summary judgment is granted. 1. Discussion A. … The defendant, a legally distinct corporation, wholly owned by the government of India and incorporated in that country, clearly fits within the definition of a foreign state set out in section 1603.

Byrd v. Corporacion Forestal y Industrial de Olancho, S.A.

974 F. Supp. 2d 264 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 30, 2013

to execution immunity under sections 1610(a) or (b). … To qualify for this exception, Plaintiffs must show that the Republic sought to avoid its obligations by engaging in “abuses of corporate form.” De Letelier, 748 F.2d at 794 .

Calderon-Cardona v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

867 F. Supp. 2d 389 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 7, 2011

Under this definition, North Korea plainly does not qualify as a “terrorist” because it is not a natural person. Nor is North Korea a “terrorist organization.” … These accounts thus qualify as "blocked assets” under TRIA § 201. .

Tachiona Ex Rel. Tachiona v. Mugabe

186 F. Supp. 2d 383 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 14, 2002

Subsequent antitrust decisions, however, establish that Cascade has been accorded little precedential weight.”). … Diplomatic Relations Act, 22 U.S.C. § 254d. § 254d states: "Such immunity may be established upon motion or suggestion by or on behalf of the individual, or as otherwise permitted by law or applicable rules of procedure.”

Takeall Ex Rel. Rubinstein v. Ambach

609 F. Supp. 81 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 21, 1985

Ambach claims immunity from suit in his official capacity. He also argues that service was insufficient to establish jurisdiction in the suit against him in his individual capacity. A. … Defendants Marcus and Jones, however, both claim qualified immunity from damages. Since they may establish qualified immunity from damages under the principles of Harlow v.

Miller v. Director, Middletown State Hospital

146 F. Supp. 674 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 30, 1956

from liability, It now appears to be well settled that the Civil Rights Act did not abolish some of the well-established common law immunities such as those for legislators, 6 judges 7 and persons in other quasi-judi *678 … It has been clearly established that although a district court may have valid jurisdiction over a ease either by reason of diversity of citizenship or a federal question, it has discretion in certain situations to determine

United States v. Pappadio

235 F. Supp. 887 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 30, 1964

The burden would be upon the Government to establish the negative fact that none of its evidence is the fruit of the protected tree of the witness’s immunized testimony. … The immunity statute does not create an opportunity for a witness to effect an illusory exchange of real immunity in return for false testimony.

Evans v. City of New York

308 F. Supp. 2d 316 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 12, 2004

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Nevertheless, “even where the plaintiffs federal rights and the scope of the official’s permissible conduct are clearly established, the qualified immunity defense protects a government actor if it was ‘objectively reasonable

Osipova v. Dinkins

907 F. Supp. 94 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 7, 1995

By Memorandum Opinion and Order dated October 6, 1994, the Court dismissed the claim against Officer Martinez on the basis of qualified immunity. Clarke is the sole remaining defendant in the instant action. … The Court granted Officer Martinez qualified immunity on the ground that “the undisputed facts establish that there was an objectively reasonable basis for Martinez to believe there existed an exigency threatening the health

United States v. Skinner

218 F. 870 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 31, 1914

There being no occasion for extending such immunity, and the policy of the law forbidding it, it should not be held that Congress intended to grant it, unless the language of the act clearly demands that construction. … The same reason has led the courts to compel the disclosure, when it was established that the statute of limitations had barred any prosecution for the crime.

Bobrowsky v. Yonkers Courthouse

777 F. Supp. 2d 692 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 8, 2011

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. … These actions are protected by judicial immunity.

Sturm v. Schrank

43 B.R. 755 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 4, 1984

Clearly then, these defendants do not fall within the scope of Section 302(a). … . § 302(a), the plaintiff has failed to establish a valid basis for personal jurisdiction over these defendants.

Aegis Insurance Services, Inc. v. Seven World Trade Center Co.

481 F. Supp. 2d 253 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 9, 2007

The third-party complaint, together with my decision in Aegis, supply each of the facts needed to establish an affirmative defense of immunity under the SDEA. … The “creation of the OEM command center and its backup generator system qualifies as a civil defense measure, namely, the ‘construction or preparation of ... control centers,’ under the [SDEA].”

United States v. Walker

982 F. Supp. 288 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 3, 1997

This is likely because the material is clearly relevant. … This Court finds no merits in any such claims of immunity: the documents clearly come within the scope of a Rule 17(c) subpoena and any testimonial aspects to their production will be immunized pursuant to this Order.

Rajohine Johnson v. Police Chief Anthony Geraci and Police Officer Kevin Jodice

District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 18, 2026

Qualified immunity shields government officials whose “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … “A qualified immunity defense is established if (a) the defendant’s action did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe that his action did not violate such

In Re September 11 Property Damage

481 F. Supp. 2d 253 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 9, 2007

The third-party complaint, together with my decision in Aegis, supply each of the facts needed to establish an affirmative defense of immunity under the SDEA. … The "creation of the OEM command center and its backup generator system qualifies as a civil defense measure, namely, the `construction or preparation of . . . control centers,' under the [SDEA]."

United States v. Green

305 F. Supp. 125 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 26, 1969

The preliminary examination is not intended as a vehicle for establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. … Such a delay is not so clearly unreasonable.

Folborg

District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 5, 2025

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects officials from liability for civil damages when, “(a) the defendant’s actions did not violate clearly established law, or (b) it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to … If an official’s belief that his or her action does not violate clearly established law is “objectively reasonable,” he or she is shielded from liability by qualified immunity. Cooper v. City of New Rochelle, 925 F.