Case law

Pavlo v. James

437 F. Supp. 125 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 19, 1977

Immunity from Service of Process New York case law has clearly established the rule that a party or witness in voluntary attendance in a court outside of the territorial jurisdiction of his residence is immune from service … Based on these facts, the plaintiff has not met his burden of establishing a basis for jurisdiction under Section 302(a)(1).

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.

Seltzer v. Foley

502 F. Supp. 600 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 8, 1980

Judicial immunity and sovereign immunity urged by the government against proceeding with this suit, appear to be inapplicable concepts here. … Sovereign immunity has two exceptions which could apply in this case if the terms of the complaint could be factually sustained.

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].”

LNC Investments, Inc. v. Republic of Nicaragua

115 F. Supp. 2d 358 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 26, 2000

Section 10.08(c) provides, in relevant part: Waiver of Immunities. … Supreme Court concluded that “[t]he language and history of the FSIA clearly establish that the Act was not intended to affect the substantive law determining the liability of a foreign state or instrumentality, or the attribution

Kaufman v. City of New York

717 F. Supp. 84 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 24, 1989

violation to establish that the legislature has acted in an arbitrary and irrational way.... … But in no case does the owner of property acquire immunity against the exercise of the police power because he constructed it in full compliance with the existing laws.

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. Pellon

475 F. Supp. 467 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 3, 1979

The first aspect can clearly be viewed as a simple nonprosecution agreement. … To make this argument, of course, the defendants must first establish that a type of use immunity existed for their disclo *479 sures to the Government in the spring of 1978. 9 This they have tried to establish in two ways

Gardiner Stone Hunter v. Iberia Lineas Aereas

896 F. Supp. 125 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 1, 1995

The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, Pub.L. … M/V Ibn Hayyan, 35 F.3d 205, 207 (5th Cir.1994) ("In order to qualify for treatment as a foreign state, UASC must meet all three requirements under § 1603(b).").

Tinnerholm v. Parke Davis & Co.

285 F. Supp. 432 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 15, 1968

Feinberg’s office for his first immunization injection. … In one report, only temperature of 105 degrees qualified as a “reaction”.

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.

Afrika v. Selsky

750 F. Supp. 595 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 25, 1990

Plaintiff also clearly does not seek damages from Defendant Ryan, and such relief would probably be barred by the doctrine of prosecutorial immunity. … Since we have determined that Selsky’s review was constitutionally sufficient, we need not reach the question of his entitlement to qualified immunity.

Capital Freight Services, Inc. v. Trailer Marine Transport Corp.

704 F. Supp. 1190 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 6, 1989

Under the state action doctrine, PRMSA might be entitled to immunity if it acted pursuant to a “ ‘clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed’ state policy to displace competition.” Town of Hallie v. … Just as the pleadings do not establish immunity for TMT and PRMMI under the LGAA, so also they cannot establish immunity for those parties under the state action doctrine. 12 Finally, the state action doctrine only confers

Lopez v. City of New York

901 F. Supp. 684 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 17, 1995

Officer Fried may be held liable only if a reasonable person in her position would have been chargeable with knowledge that her actions violated the clearly established rights of the plaintiffs. … In consequence, the Court holds that Officer Fried’s actions, which were eon- *694 sistent with and undertaken pursuant to written policies of the New York City Police Department, are protected by qualified immunity.

Grandison v. United States Postal Service

696 F. Supp. 891 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 5, 1988

Title VII and the ADEA for alleged discrimination based on his race, national origin, age and religion by the United States Postal Service in failing to promote him to a position for which he asserts he was more or equally qualified … The court decided that “[a]n action against the Postal Service, although ‘an independent establishment of the executive branch of the [federal government],’ 39 U.S.C. § 201 , is an action against the federal government for

Consumers Union of United States, Inc. v. Albright

427 F. Supp. 840 · District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 25, 1977

Having established some burden on interstate commerce, the court must look to “the criteria for determining the validity of state statutes affecting interstate commerce” as established by the Supreme Court and set forth in … The already established legitimate local purpose of Section 266 (see equal protection analysis, supra) clearly outweighs the minimal impact of the regulation on interstate commerce. *850 Due Process Plaintiffs attack Section

United States Lines, Inc. v. American Steamship Owners Mutual Protection & Indemnity Ass'n (In Re United States Lines, Inc.)

199 B.R. 465 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 19, 1996

The district court denied the officers’ motion to dismiss on the ground of qualified immunity, and also denied both the city’s and the county’s motions to dismiss. See id. All defendants appealed. … The Supreme Court has recently cautioned that, on an interlocutory appeal from an order rejecting a claim of qualified immunity, a claim involving a “pendent party” is an “unrelated question” that cannot be resolved under

Muller v. Wachtel

345 F. Supp. 160 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 24, 1972

By the same token, Justice Reilly, who, under common law, is immune from liability for acts performed within his judicial discretion, is also immune under the Civil Rights Act. Pierson v. … However, in the present case, the asserted defenses are not clearly established by undisputed facts.

Refco, Inc. v. Galadari

755 F. Supp. 79 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 4, 1991

This immunity appears to be similar in nature to the immunity afforded courts in this country. … This case fits clearly within the legislative intent.

Stanley v. Finnegan

356 F. Supp. 3d 779 · District Court, S.D. New York · Dec 3, 2018

Prior to the instant motion, Finnegan, among others, filed motions to dismiss (Docs. 19, 21, & 22) the Stanleys' claims on qualified immunity, collateral-attack, and state preclusion grounds. … As the Eighth Circuit clearly stated in its order affirming this Court's earlier decision, "it is clearly established that the removal of children from their parents' custody violates a constitutional right if the removal