Puckett v. United States
556 U.S. 129 (2009) Cited 4,520 times 5 Legal AnalysesHolding that to be "clear or obvious" an error cannot be "subject to reasonable dispute"
Sprint Communications Co. v. APCC Services, Inc.
554 U.S. 269 (2008) Cited 782 times 8 Legal AnalysesHolding that a federal cause of action that permitted payphone operators to seek compensation from long-distance carriers for certain calls was assignable
Pearson v. Component Tech. Corp.
247 F.3d 471 (3d Cir. 2001) Cited 629 times 3 Legal AnalysesHolding that no person held a director or officer position both with CompTech and with GECC
Phillips v. Kantor Co.
31 N.Y.2d 307 (N.Y. 1972) Cited 613 timesIndicating that Dead Man's Statute would render interested party's deposition testimony inadmissible at trial
Glick Dolleck v. Tri-Pac Export Corp.
22 N.Y.2d 439 (N.Y. 1968) Cited 550 timesHolding that "[t]he court may not weigh the credibility of the affiants on a motion for summary judgment unless it clearly appears that the issues are not genuine, but feigned"
Red Tulip v. Neiva
44 A.D.3d 204 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007) Cited 146 timesHolding "absolute and unconditional" guaranty which "absolutely, unconditionally and irrevocably" waived right to assert "any defense, set-off, counterclaim or cross claim of any nature whatsoever with respect to this guaranty," except the defense of actual payment, waived all counterclaims and defenses
Trust Certificate Holders v. Love Funding Corp.
2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 7323 (N.Y. 2009) Cited 73 times 2 Legal AnalysesHolding the Plaintiff could not recover as it was assigned a right for the purpose of litigation
Bluebird Partners, L.P. v. First Fidelity Bank, N.A.
94 N.Y.2d 726 (N.Y. 2000) Cited 85 times 2 Legal AnalysesIn Bluebird Partners, L.P. v. First Fidelity Bank, N.A., 94 N.Y.2d at 735-36, 709 N.Y.S.2d at 871, 731 N.E.2d 581, the New York Court of Appeals recognized the interpretive tension in these precedents.
Elliott Associates, L.P. v. Banco de la Nacion
194 F.3d 363 (2d Cir. 1999) Cited 63 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that New York's champerty statute was not violated where the "accused party's primary goal [was] found to be the satisfaction of a valid debt and its intent is only to sue absent full performance"
Auerbach v. Board of Educ
86 N.Y.2d 198 (N.Y. 1995) Cited 54 timesArgued June 6, 1995 Decided June 29, 1995 Appeal from the Board of Education of the City of School District of the City of New York. Paul A. Crotty, Corporation Counsel of New York City (John Hogrogian and Pamela Seider Dolgow of counsel), for appellants in the first, second and third above-entitled proceedings. Bruce K. Bryant, Brooklyn, for respondents in the first and second above-entitled proceedings. Pryor, Cashman, Sherman Flynn, New York City (Ronald H. Shechtman and Tina C. Kremenezky of
Section 5601 - Appeals to the court of appeals as of right
N.Y. CPLR 5601 Cited 2,357 times(a) Dissent. An appeal may be taken to the court of appeals as of right in an action originating in the supreme court, a county court, a surrogate's court, the family court, the court of claims or an administrative agency, from an order of the appellate division which finally determines the action, where there is a dissent by at least two justices on a question of law in favor of the party taking such appeal. (b) Constitutional grounds. An appeal may be taken to the court of appeals as of right:
Section 5602 - Appeals to the court of appeals by permission
N.Y. CPLR 5602 Cited 1,156 timesDiscussing appeals by permission to New York Court of Appeals
Section 489 - Purchase of claims by corporations or collection agencies
N.Y. Jud. Law § 489 Cited 215 times 1 Legal AnalysesContaining specific requirement of "with the intent and for the purpose" for champerty defense