§Why CasetextPricing

Walter R. Beardslee,, et al., Respondents,v.Inflection Energy, LLC, et al., Appellants.

Brief

39 Cited authorities

  1. Kel Kim Corp. v. Central Markets, Inc.

    70 N.Y.2d 900 (N.Y. 1987)   Cited 334 times   44 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the lessee's inability to procure and maintain liability coverage "could have been foreseen and guarded against when it specifically undertook that obligation in the lease," and therefore rejecting defendant's impossibility defense

  2. Witter v. Taggart

    78 N.Y.2d 234 (N.Y. 1991)   Cited 133 times
    In Witter, the common owner conveyed the dominant estate in a deed that contained an encumbrance that burdened the servient estate, which the common owner retained.

  3. 407 E. 61st Garage v. Savoy Corp.

    23 N.Y.2d 275 (N.Y. 1968)   Cited 183 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the jury should decide whether the contract imported a promise to stay in business

  4. Allegiance Hillview v. Range Tx. Production

    347 S.W.3d 855 (Tex. App. 2011)   Cited 23 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an inadequately briefed issue had been waived on appeal

  5. Team Marketing USA Corp. v. Power Pact, LLC

    41 A.D.3d 939 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)   Cited 27 times   8 Legal Analyses

    No. 501907. June 7, 2007. Mercure, J.P. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Kavanagh, J.), entered October 4, 2006 in Ulster County, which, inter alia, granted defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint. Corbally, Gartland Rappleyea, L.L.P., Poughkeepsie (Anthony C. Carlini Jr. of counsel), for appellant. Paskoff Tamber, L.L.P., New York City (Adam Paskoff of counsel), for respondent. Before: Spain, Carpinello, Mugglin and Kane, JJ. In March 2005, the parties entered into a contract in which

  6. Goldstein v. Lindner

    2002 WI App. 122 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 28 times

    No. 01-2068. Opinion Released: April 9, 2002. Opinion Filed: April 9, 2002. APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Forest County: CHARLES D. HEATH, Judge. Affirmed. On behalf of the plaintiffs-appellants, the cause was submitted on the briefs of Francis R. Croak, Michael J. Lund and Steven L. Nelson of Cooke Franke S.C., Milwaukee. On behalf of the defendants-respondents, the cause was submitted on the brief of William Schroeder of Sommer, Olk, Schroeder Payant, Rhinelander and James L.

  7. White v. State

    261 P.3d 412 (Alaska 2011)   Cited 14 times
    Holding that reasonable basis standard applies to agency's interpretation of its own regulation, which means "defer to the agency unless its interpretation is plainly erroneous and inconsistent with the regulation"

  8. In re Cablevision Consumer Litig.

    864 F. Supp. 2d 258 (E.D.N.Y. 2012)   Cited 12 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting party's interpretation of contract because it would have rendered it "arguably illusory" such that contract would lack a mutual intent to be bound

  9. Macalloy Corporation v. Metallurg, Inc.

    284 A.D.2d 227 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)   Cited 22 times   4 Legal Analyses
    In Macalloy, the plaintiff sought declaratory relief under a contract which included a "plant shutdown" as a force majeure event.

  10. Perlman v. Pioneer Ltd. Partnership

    918 F.2d 1244 (5th Cir. 1991)   Cited 34 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the doctrine of force majeure did not excuse nonperformance; frustration not at issue