Cases
Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.
20 opinions for “Ruffin v. City of New York”
Rentas v. Ruffinpublic domain
LOHIER, Circuit Judge: Axel Rentas appeals, and Captain John Ruffin cross-appeals,, from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern , District of New York (Heller-stein, /.). Rentas, a former inmate on Rikers Island, sued several correction officers and prison officials along with the City of New York, claiming that the officers used excessive force against him and then fabricated evidence, leading to hi
City of Dallas v. Reggie Ruffinpublic domain
Reversed and Rendered, and Opinion Filed July 28, 2021 S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-20-00646-CV CITY OF DALLAS, Appellant V. REGGIE RUFFIN, Appellee On Appeal from the 95th District Court Dallas C
Ruffin v. LION CORP. & C.public domain
15 N.Y.3d 578 (2010) 940 N.E.2d 909 915 N.Y.S.2d 204 LOUISE RUFFIN, Appellant, v. LION CORP., Doing Business as LION TOUR BUS COMPANY, Also Known as LION TOUR & TRAVEL, INC., and as LION TRAILWAYS, et al., Respondents. No. 196 Court of Appeals of New York. Argued October 21, 2010. Decided November 30, 2010.
Bellamy v. City of New Yorkpublic domain
17‐1859 Bellamy v. City of New York 1 In the 2 United States Court of Appeals 3 For the Second Circuit 4 ________ 5 6 AUGUST TERM, 2017 7 8 ARGUED: APRIL 26, 2018 9 DECIDED: JANUARY 29, 2019 10
Young v. City of New Yorkpublic domain
Young v City of New York (2018 NY Slip Op 05793) Young v City of New York 2018 NY Slip Op 05793 Decided on August 15, 2018 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant
Folk v. City of New Yorkpublic domain
DECISION & ORDER WILLIAM F. KUNTZ, II, United States District Judge: Police Officer Robert Manzi, Detective Arthur Umlauf, Police Officer Derrick Boyd, Police Officer Steveii Florio, Sergeant William Schmidt, and John Doe 5 (together, the “Individual Defendants"), together with the City of New York (the “City”) (collectively, “Defendants”) move to dismiss plaintiff Shaniqua Folk’s (“Plaintiff’) complain
Ruffin v. District of Columbiapublic domain
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA NALENE RUFFIN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 22-2341 (JEB) DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiffs Nalene Ruffin, Irene Jordan, Demetria Harris, and Darlene Mungin are all current or former employees of the District of
Ying Li v. City of New Yorkpublic domain
MEMORANDUM & ORDER PAMELA K. CHEN, United States District Judge: On March 26, 2015, Plaintiff Ying Li commenced this action against Defendants pursuant .to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”) and New York law. (See Dkt. 1.) Plaintiffs ten-count Amended Complaint alleges numerous theories of liability against Defendants. (See Dkt. 36, Amended Complaint (“Am. Compl.”).) In general, Plaintiff alle
Mitchell v. the City of New Yorkpublic domain
*75 WINTER, Circuit Judge: Melinda Mitchell and Harvey Mitchell— we will refer to them as Melinda and Harvey because they are not related—along with other similarly situated ■ individuals, appeal from: Judge Kaplan’s dismissal of their complaint on a grant of summary judgment to appellees. We hold that the
Gardner v. City University of New Yorkpublic domain
OPINION OF THE COURT David A. Weinstein, J. By prior decision and order filed on September 5, 2012, I granted claimant’s motion for leave to file a late claim pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10 (6), arising out of a trip and fall on a sidewalk outside of the City University of New York (CUNY) Hunter College on December 12, 2009 (Gardner v City Univ. of N.Y., Ct Cl, July 23, 2012, Weinstein, J., UI
Hardy v. City of New Yorkpublic domain
732 F.Supp.2d 112 (2010) Lawrence HARDY, Plaintiff, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, the City of New York Department of Correction, Correction Officer Patrick Dorvil, Badge No. 11544, Frantz Medard, M.D. as Agents, Servants, and Employees of the City of New York Department of Correction, Officer Ricky Reynolds, Officer Brian Lewis, Officer George Lewis, Officer Thomas Lewis, Nurse Ann Dalecki, P.A. Noriel DeGuzman, Kamal Pathak, M.D., as Agents, Servants
Wise v. Ruffinpublic domain
716 F.Supp. 213 (1989) Gary G. WISE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Peter B. RUFFIN, et al., Defendants. No. 87-38-CIV-7. United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Wilmington Division. July 25, 1989. *214 Kevin Marrinan, Law Offices of Thomas W. Gleason, New York City, and A.A. Canoutas, Wilmington, N.C., for plaintiffs.
Hector v. Bank of New York Mellonpublic domain
Ashley Hector, et al. v. Bank of New York Mellon, No. 10, September Term, 2020. Opinion by Biran, J. ESTATES AND TRUSTS – TRUSTEES – INDIVIDUAL TRUSTEE LIABLITY – The Court of Appeals held that a tort plaintiff may sue a trustee in its individual capacity for acts or omissions undertaken in the course of trust administration. Although it is well settled that an entity acting in its individual capacity, and the same entity acting as a trustee, are, in law, two distinct persons, a plaintiff may
Keitt v. New York Citypublic domain
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GEORGE B. DANIELS, District Judge. Pro se plaintiff Devin Keitt (“Keitt”) brings this action alleging claims under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (“IDEA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq., Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq., the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. 794 et seq., <
Wise v. Ruffinpublic domain
MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judge: The primary issue presented for our review in this consolidated appeal concerns the attempted assertion by a multiemployer pension plan against an individual employer withdrawing from the plan of withdrawal liability as computed under the “modified presumptive method,” pursuant to the Mul-tiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1381 et seq. Specifically, we must determine whether
Rentas v. Ruffinpublic domain
14-2475-cv (L) Rentas v. Ruffin 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 2 FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 3 4 August Term, 2015 5 6 (Argued: October 7, 2015 Decided: March 8, 2016) 7 8 Docket Nos. 14‐2475‐cv (Lead) 14‐2512‐cv (XAP) 9 10 11 _________________________________
Ruffin v. Duggerpublic domain
CLARK, Circuit Judge, specially concurring: I concur in the result and in all of Parts I and III of the majority opinion. With respect to Part II, the Enmund issue, I concur because the Florida judiciary has made the necessary Enmund findings in Ruffin’s case as required by Cabana v. Bullock, 474 U.S. 376, 106 S.Ct. 689, 88 L.Ed.2d 704 (1986). As pointed out in note 7 of the per
Busch v. City of New Yorkpublic domain
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER JOHNSON, Senior District Judge. On November 19, 2003, after a four week trial and six hours of deliberation, a jury rendered a verdict finding Defendants Sergeant Terrence O’Brien (“Sgt. O’Brien”), Sergeant Joseph Memoly (“Sgt. Memoly”), Officer William Loshiavo (“Loshiavo”), Officer Daniel Gravitch (“Officer Gravitch”), and Officer Martin Sanabria (“Sanabria”) not liable on all f
Ruffin v. Woodpublic domain
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Battaglia, J.), dated July 19, 2011, which, upon the denial of her motion pursuant to CPLR 4401, made at the close of evidence, for judgment as a matter of law, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendants and against her, and upon an order of the same court dated June 21, 2011, which denied her motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (
Dreckette v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.public domain
OPINION OF THE COURT Marsha L. Steinhardt, J. Defendants New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (NYCHHC) sued herein as Kings County Hospital Center and Dr. Susan Smith McKinney Nursing Rehabilitation Center move for an order dismissing the action pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) for failure to timely serve a notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law §§ 50-e and 50-i and section 7401 of the M