Search for: "Erie R. Co. v. New York" Results 21 - 40 of 93
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
11 Nov 2011, 6:12 am
Co., 55 AD3d 879, 880-881), and defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see generally Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). [read post]
5 Nov 2009, 2:23 am
The plaintiff amicus argued that the controlling doctrine is not Erie, but the decision in Hanna v. [read post]
14 Jun 2010, 9:19 pm
It is for the jury to decide if "[a] reasonable investigation of the facts . . . would indicate that the chances of successfully defending the [underlying] action were very remote" (State of New York v Merchant's Ins. [read post]
11 Jul 2012, 6:13 pm
Even assuming, arguendo, that the phrase "arising out of" is interpreted as "originating from, incident to, or having connection with" (Maroney v New York Cent. [read post]
21 Dec 2009, 12:33 pm
Co. (1st Dept., decided 12/15/2009) Since February 2008, when the New York Court of Appeals issued its groundbreaking, 5-2 decisions in Bi-Economy Mkt., Inc. v. [read post]
6 Aug 2018, 11:43 am by Anthony Gaughan
Cardozo’s majority opinions in Steward Machine Co. v. [read post]
9 Feb 2010, 6:33 am
Gelstein,  the New York Court of Appeals noted: Under the [New York] Times [Co. v Sullivan (376 US 254)] malice standard, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the “statements [were] made with [a] high degree of awareness of their probable falsity” (Garrison v Louisiana, 379 US 64, 74). [read post]