Search for: "Ross v Louise Wise Servs., Inc."
Results 1 - 9
of 9
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 May 2007, 10:46 am
Ross v Louise Wise Servs., Inc. 2007 NY Slip Op 03793 is a case with an unique set of facts and interesting claims, and, in my opinion, a somewhat confusing determination on the issue of whether... [read post]
3 May 2007, 9:07 am
That was the issue decided by the Court of Appeals today in Ross v Louise Wise Servs., Inc., 2007 NY Slip Op 03793. [read post]
26 May 2015, 8:00 am
” Further, the Appellate Division commented that “in any event, mere silence is insufficient to invoke the doctrine of equitable estoppel, citing Ross v Louise Wise Servs. [read post]
7 May 2007, 9:22 am
Louise Wise Servs., Inc., New York Court of Appeals, May 7, 2007 http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/ny/cases/app/58opn07.pdf [read post]
15 Sep 2011, 2:45 am
Since the laws alleged to be in conflict—including those regarding the availability of punitive damages, an important purpose of which is deterrence (see Ross v Louise Wise Servs., Inc., 8 NY3d 478, 489) — are of a conduct-regulating nature, the law of the place of the tort applies (see Padula v Lilarn Props. [read post]
10 Jan 2020, 4:35 am
Additionally, a failure to disclose one’s own alleged wrongdoing does not toll the statute of limitations (Ross v Louise Wise Servs. [read post]
13 Jan 2020, 4:42 am
Additionally, a failure to disclose one’s own alleged wrongdoing does not toll the statute of limitations (Ross v Louise Wise Servs. [read post]
13 Jul 2010, 8:59 am
(Ross v Louise Wise Serv., Inc., 8 NY3d 478, 489, quoting Walker v Sheldon, 10 NY2d 401, 405; see Prozeralik v Capital Cities Communications, 82 NY2d 466, 479; Sharapata v Town of Islip, 56 NY2d 332, 335). [read post]
16 Nov 2018, 4:27 am
In order for the doctrine of equitable estoppel to apply, “a plaintiff may not rely on the same act that forms the basis for the claim—the later fraudulent misrepresentation must be for the purpose of concealing the former tort” (Ross v Louise Wise Servs., Inc., 8 NY3d 478, 491; see Zumpano v Queen, 6 NY3d 666, 674; Benjamin v Allstate Ins. [read post]
