holding that because the defendant “has not proven that [the settling defendant] was also involved [in the fraud] ... [plaintiff's] settlement with [the settling defendant] does not reduce plaintiff's recovery against [the defendant] in this action”
Summary of this case from Barkley v. United Homes, LLCNo. 98-9272.
July 20, 1999.
S.D.N.Y., 25 F.Supp.2d 376.
Affirmed
holding that because the defendant “has not proven that [the settling defendant] was also involved [in the fraud] ... [plaintiff's] settlement with [the settling defendant] does not reduce plaintiff's recovery against [the defendant] in this action”
Summary of this case from Barkley v. United Homes, LLCdenying habeas relief where the trial court closed the courtroom on general ground that "there is a law enforcement need" because the court's conclusion was premised on a finding of continuing undercover work by the witness in the same location as the scene of the crime, which is "precisely the kind of finding that the Second Circuit found to justify courtroom closure"
Summary of this case from Cadilla v. Johnsonaffirming “for substantially the reasons stated by the district court”
Summary of this case from Finnie v. Lee Cnty.affirming "for substantially the reasons stated by the district court"
Summary of this case from EEOC v. Oak-Rite Manufacturing Corporation, (S.D.Ind. 2001)affirming "for substantially the reasons stated by the district court"
Summary of this case from Finnie v. Lee Cnty.rejecting that argument when made by a pro se party
Summary of this case from Vallecastro v. Tobin, Melien & Marohnrecognizing Free Exercise claim against Transit Authority, but finding plaintiff failed to offer any proof in support of allegation of intentional discrimination
Summary of this case from Lewis v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth.recognizing Free Exercise claim against Transit Authority, but finding plaintiff failed to offer any proof in support of allegation of intentional discrimination
Summary of this case from Lewis ex rel. Estate of Lewis v. New York City Transit Authorityenforcing oral settlement agreement
Summary of this case from Gaul v. Chrysler Fin. Servs. Ams., LLCFull title:Hyosung America, Inc. v. Sumagh Textile Co., Ltd
Court:United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Date published: Jul 20, 1999
The ultimate inquiry is whether "a reasonable person, knowing all the facts, [would] conclude that the trial…
In re Glaxo Smithkline PLC Securities LitigationSimilarly, under the "bespeaks caution" doctrine, "[c]ertain alleged misrepresentations . . . are immaterial…