§Why CasetextPricing

Paul Davis, Appellant,v.Scottish Re Group Limited, et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

Brief

18 Cited authorities

  1. Leon v. Martinez

    84 N.Y.2d 83 (N.Y. 1994)   Cited 9,630 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the allegations in the complaint and the supporting affidavits were adequate to withstand a motion to dismiss

  2. Bernhardt v. Polygraphic Co.

    350 U.S. 198 (1956)   Cited 628 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the language of the FAA makes clear that Congress chose certain “kind of agreement” to be brought under federal regulation and exempted others

  3. Burke v. Crosson

    85 N.Y.2d 10 (N.Y. 1995)   Cited 153 times

    Argued January 5, 1995 Decided February 9, 1995 Appeal from the Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Rosemary S. Pooler, J. Dennis C. Vacco, Attorney-General, Albany (Frank K. Walsh, Jerry Boone and Peter H. Schiff of counsel), for Edward Regan and another, appellants. Michael Colodner, New York City, John Eiseman and John J. Sullivan for Matthew T. Crosson, appellant. Julian Pertz, P.C., Utica (Robert F. Julian of counsel), for respondents. TITONE, J. Plaintiffs, three Onondaga County Court Judges, commenced

  4. Tanges v. Heidelberg North America, Inc.

    93 N.Y.2d 48 (N.Y. 1999)   Cited 126 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Finding Connecticut's own classification only instructive, not binding

  5. Winn ex Rel. Scottish re Group v. Schafer

    499 F. Supp. 2d 390 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)   Cited 39 times
    Holding that under New York choice of law rules, the law of the Cayman Islands applied to a derivative claim on behalf of a Cayman corporation

  6. Telaro v. Telaro

    25 N.Y.2d 433 (N.Y. 1969)   Cited 122 times

    Argued October 28, 1969 Decided December 4, 1969 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, FREDERICK BACKER, J. Leonard C. Shalleck, Irving I. Erdheim and Milton P. Falk for appellant. Morris H. Halpern and Abraham J. Heller for respondent. BREITEL, J. This appeal involves an action by a wife to recover, inter alia, one half of some $24,800 withdrawn by her husband, defendant-respondent, from a brokerage account held at that time in the names of both

  7. Howe v. the Bank of N.Y. Mellon

    783 F. Supp. 2d 466 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)   Cited 30 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Howe, the court allowed Plaintiff-bondholder's unjust enrichment claim to stand against a co-issuer of trust preferred securities.

  8. Sachs v. Adeli

    26 A.D.3d 52 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)   Cited 27 times   1 Legal Analyses

    6447. November 29, 2005. APPEAL from an order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered January 10, 2005. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied plaintiff's motion to compel defendants-respondents to execute authorizations to release certain corporate sales tax records. Aaron Richard Golub, P.C., New York City ( Nehemiah S. Glanc, Aaron Richard Golub and Mark W. Moody of counsel), for appellant. Ballon, Stoll, Bader Nadler, P.C., New York City ( Susan Schneiderman

  9. Hausman v. Buckley

    299 F.2d 696 (2d Cir. 1962)   Cited 92 times
    Holding that, under internal affairs doctrine, district court properly applied Venezuelan law in determining the right of stockholders of Venezuelan corporation to bring derivative action

  10. In re Tyco International, Ltd.

    340 F. Supp. 2d 94 (D.N.H. 2004)   Cited 18 times
    Finding that "both English and Bermudian courts have recognized that when a shareholder seeks to bring a derivative action to recover damages for past ultra vires acts, the shareholder must demonstrate that the case qualifies under the fraud on the minority exception."