39 Cited authorities

Mastrobuono v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc.
514 U.S. 52 (1995) Cited 1,239 times 14 Legal Analyses
Holding that courts should be guided by the “cardinal principle of contract construction: that a document should be read to give effect to all of its provisions and to render them consistent with each other”
Matter Allstate
81 N.Y.2d 219 (N.Y. 1993) Cited 684 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that "there is no conflict between New York and New Jersey law," and that even if there were a conflict, "New Jersey law [would] govern"
Nedlloyd Lines B.V. v. Superior Court
3 Cal.4th 459 (Cal. 1992) Cited 567 times 14 Legal Analyses
Holding that the phrase "governed by" in a choice of law clause compels the "logical conclusion" that the parties "intended that law to apply to all disputes arising out of the transaction or relationship"
International Business v. Liberty Mut
363 F.3d 137 (2d Cir. 2004) Cited 249 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[a]ny ambiguity as to the insurer's duty to defend is resolved in favor of the insured" under both New York and California law
Smith Barney v. Sacharow
91 N.Y.2d 39 (N.Y. 1997) Cited 292 times
Holding that an agreement governed by New York law that states that “[a]ny controversy ... shall be settled by arbitration” clearly and unmistakably reserves the decision of arbitrability for the arbitrator
Fieger v. Pitney Bowes Credit Corp.
251 F.3d 386 (2d Cir. 2001) Cited 217 times
Holding that, while "it is helpful to consider the decisions of state's trial . . . courts," those decisions should be "disregarded" if "a federal court . . . is convinced by other persuasive data that the highest court of the state would decide otherwise"
State v. Home Indemnity Company
66 N.Y.2d 669 (N.Y. 1985) Cited 315 times
Holding that the term-of-art affidavit in that case "did not supply the evidentiary facts needed to present an issue for the jury"
Welsbach Electric Corp. v. MasTec North America
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 8632 (N.Y. 2006) Cited 167 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that New York's public policy against pay-if-paid contracts is not so fundamental that it should override the parties' choice of Florida law, which permits pay-if-paid contracts
In the Matter of Covert
97 N.Y.2d 68 (N.Y. 2001) Cited 123 times
Concluding that New York slayer's rule did not prevent proceeds of pension plans and insurance contracts from passing to alternative beneficiaries where insured/participant murdered primary beneficiary, his wife
Woodling v. Garrett Corp.
813 F.2d 543 (2d Cir. 1987) Cited 156 times
Holding that lower court properly honored parties' contractual choice of Connecticut law with respect to matters of substance where Connecticut was principal place of business of one of the parties
Section 1332 - Diversity of citizenship; amount in controversy; costs
28 U.S.C. § 1332 Cited 111,364 times 572 Legal Analyses
Holding district court has jurisdiction over action between diverse citizens "where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000"
Section 1291 - Final decisions of district courts
28 U.S.C. § 1291 Cited 88,759 times 138 Legal Analyses
Granting jurisdiction to the courts of appeals from final decisions of federal district courts "except where a direct review may be had in the Supreme Court"
Section 5-1401 - Choice of law
N.Y. Gen. Oblig. Law § 5-1401 Cited 98 times 7 Legal Analyses
Recognizing contracting parties' choice of New York law to govern certain major transactions
Section 500.27 - Discretionary proceedings to review certified questions from Federal courts and other courts of last resort
N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 22 § 500.27 Cited 231 times 2 Legal Analyses
Authorizing the New York Court of Appeals to review certain certified questions

The Ministers and Missionaries Benefit Board, Interpleader Plaintiff,v.Leon Snow et al., Appellants, v. The Estate of Clark Flesher, et al., Respondents.

39 Cited authorities

Holding that courts should be guided by the “cardinal principle of contract construction: that a document should be read to give effect to all of its provisions and to render them consistent with each other”

Holding that "there is no conflict between New York and New Jersey law," and that even if there were a conflict, "New Jersey law [would] govern"

Holding that the phrase "governed by" in a choice of law clause compels the "logical conclusion" that the parties "intended that law to apply to all disputes arising out of the transaction or relationship"

Holding that "[a]ny ambiguity as to the insurer's duty to defend is resolved in favor of the insured" under both New York and California law

Holding that an agreement governed by New York law that states that “[a]ny controversy ... shall be settled by arbitration” clearly and unmistakably reserves the decision of arbitrability for the arbitrator

Holding that, while "it is helpful to consider the decisions of state's trial . . . courts," those decisions should be "disregarded" if "a federal court . . . is convinced by other persuasive data that the highest court of the state would decide otherwise"

Holding that the term-of-art affidavit in that case "did not supply the evidentiary facts needed to present an issue for the jury"

Holding that New York's public policy against pay-if-paid contracts is not so fundamental that it should override the parties' choice of Florida law, which permits pay-if-paid contracts

Concluding that New York slayer's rule did not prevent proceeds of pension plans and insurance contracts from passing to alternative beneficiaries where insured/participant murdered primary beneficiary, his wife

Holding that lower court properly honored parties' contractual choice of Connecticut law with respect to matters of substance where Connecticut was principal place of business of one of the parties

Holding district court has jurisdiction over action between diverse citizens "where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000"

Granting jurisdiction to the courts of appeals from final decisions of federal district courts "except where a direct review may be had in the Supreme Court"

Recognizing contracting parties' choice of New York law to govern certain major transactions

Authorizing the New York Court of Appeals to review certain certified questions