Case law

Della Mura v. Thomas

District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 19, 2019

Supp. 2d 346, 355 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). 10) “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Ct. 3034 (1987). 13) Even in situations in which an action is found to have been a violation of a clearly established right, qualified immunity still applies if it was “objectively reasonable” for

Golden v. City of New York

District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 7, 2025

the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.” … See Ianuale, 2024 WL 4856206, at *12 (finding that defendant prosecutors “are entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiffs have not alleged that the act of issuing the press releases violate[d] a clearly established

Bowes v. Commission to Investigate Allegations of Police Corruption

330 F. Supp. 262 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 14, 1971

What his motion asks the court to do is to render an advisory opinion as to the scope of the immunity protection * * *, if immunity is hereafter offered him, and as to the constitutionality of such a grant of immunity. … Since the Commission has asked these officers no questions, it has not been established what the function of the Commission ultimately is.

Pineda

District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 30, 2026

Neither Arroyo nor LaMonica Are Entitled to Qualified Immunity With Pineda’s claims against Imperati dismissed, the Court next assesses Defendants’ contention that Arroyo and LaMonica are entitled to qualified immunity … Accordingly, neither Arroyo nor LaMonica are entitled to qualified immunity. VII.

A/S D/S Svendborg v. United States

726 F. Supp. 1401 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 7, 1987

The relevant inquiry, when sovereign immunity is concerned, is whether the statute clearly contemplates the exercise of jurisdiction by another court. … Congress has not clearly waived the United States’ sovereign immunity to any greater extent. Such a waiver may not be supplied by this Court. Svendborg’s claim for the costs of its oil clean-up is therefore dismissed.

McDaniel v. The People of the State of New York

District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 30, 2023

If the doctrine applies, then “[q]ualified immunity protects officials from liability for civil damages as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Accordingly, it was not “clearly established” at the time of the search that asking Mr.

Postema v. National League of Professional Baseball Clubs

799 F. Supp. 1475 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jul 17, 1992

That provision is clearly substantive insofar as it expands the definition of conduct actionable under § 1981. … Here, by contrast, at issue is the retroactivity of provisions of the 1991 Act which are clearly remedial and procedural in nature. 7 .

Doe v. United States

829 F. Supp. 59 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 1, 1993

The uncontroverted facts establish that the disclosure of the FBI 302 Report at issue here occurred in connection with a prosecution of Richard Roe and others. The disclosure was made for two purposes. … The activities giving rise to the disclosure complained of here — compliance with criminal discovery obligations in preparation for trial, and the litigation of a pretrial motion-are clearly part of the “judicial phase” of

United States v. Pisani

590 F. Supp. 1326 · District Court, S.D. New York · Apr 18, 1984

The Board of Elections, however, clearly intended to make the distinction. Surplus means remaining excess or left over. In addition. … Those allegations are sufficient to establish fraud. The alleged use of the mails in furtherance of the scheme establishes a mail fraud charge. 8 .

Leutwyler v. Office of Her Majesty Queen Rania Al-Abdullah

184 F. Supp. 2d 277 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 8, 2001

exceptions to FSIA immunity. … party’s presumptive sovereign immunity.

In Re Ullman

128 F. Supp. 617 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jan 31, 1955

function; (4) further, assuming it is valid, the application fails to set forth facts establishing that it is in the public interest to grant, immunity; (5) certain of the questions as to which the application is made are … Certainly, it contains nothing that requires the court to reject the construction which the statutory language clearly requires.

Amoco Overseas Oil Co. v. Compagnie Nationale Algerienne De Navigation ("C.N.A.N.") & T/S

459 F. Supp. 1242 · District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 27, 1978

Clearly, at the time this suit was begun there was no prohibition against the use of attachment for jurisdictional purposes against a foreign sovereign or instrumentality thereof. … Rights were established in these plaintiffs by the entry of the default judgment for inquest on October 27, 1976, well before the effective date of the Immunities Act.

Kukaj

District Court, S.D. New York · Feb 10, 2026

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects officials from liability for civil damages when, “(a) the defendant’s action 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.

Vernon v. PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JER.

154 F. Supp. 2d 844 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 7, 2001

In order to establish a prima facie case for discriminatory failure to promote, a plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) membership in a protected class, (2) application for promotion to a position for which he was qualified, (3 … Port Authority’s judgments, Port Authority was not immune.

Merco Properties, Inc. v. Guggenheimer

395 F. Supp. 1322 · District Court, S.D. New York · Jun 3, 1975

Defendants’ Immunity We next turn to defendants’ claim that they are immune and privileged from actions brought under 42 U.S. C. § 1983. … In this context, we find that the challenged ordinance is not unconstitutionally overbroad, since we do not believe that a duly qualified person is restricted from obtaining a license to operate a cabaret or catering establishment

Alli v. Sylla

District Court, S.D. New York · Sep 29, 2023

A plaintiff seeking to defeat a qualified immunity defense must “plead[] facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of … violation was clearly established.”

Dixon v. Blackensee

District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 26, 2020

As such, “qualified immunity shields both state and federal officials from suit unless [1] the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that [2] was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct … So long as preexisting law “clearly foreshadow[s] a particular ruling,” a court will treat it as clearly established for qualified-immunity purposes. Tellier v. Fields, 280 F.3d 69, 84 (2d.

Feeney v. Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corp.

693 F. Supp. 34 · District Court, S.D. New York · Aug 11, 1988

It is well established that even though a state is not named a party to the action, the suit may nonetheless be barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Edelman v. Jordan, supra, 415 U.S. at 663 , 94 S.Ct. at 1355 . … In Ex parte State of New York, 256 U.S. 490 , 41 S.Ct. 588 , 65 L.Ed. 1057 (1921), and its progeny, it was clearly established that allowing Eleventh Amendment immunity for state owned *42 businesses does not violate the

United States v. Caruso

684 F. Supp. 84 · District Court, S.D. New York · May 5, 1988

VAGUENESS OF COUNT THREE The defendant also moves this court to dismiss Count Three of the indictment on the ground that the time period alleged is too vague to allow the defendant to establish the time during which the possession … The oft criticized doctrine of transactional immunity, indeed, immunizes a witness from prosecution for any criminal conduct that his or her statements to the grand jury implicate. 2 .

Preferred Physicians Mutual Risk Retention Group v. Cuomo

865 F. Supp. 1057 · District Court, S.D. New York · Oct 20, 1994

Theater Corp., 790 F.2d at 1043 (state agency’s claim of immunity must be considered under the clearly articulated policy standard). … As to these other alleged activities, Noerr-Pennington immunity clearly does not apply.