Holding that, in assessing whether markups on municipal bonds are excessive, "courts should begin with the factors set forth under MSRB (Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board) Rule G-30."
Holding that the Declaratory Judgment Act "by its express terms vests a district court with discretion to determine whether it will exert jurisdiction over a proposed declaratory judgment action or not"
237 F. Supp. 2d 394 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) Cited 113 times
Finding no "actual controversy" under the Declaratory Judgment Act because plaintiff's complaint was "grounded on a string of apprehensions and conjectures" that it would be held liable in a separate action
Recognizing that the subpoena of a reporter's phone records “is a first step of an inquiry into the identity” of the source and that a balancing test should be applied to determine whether the reporter's privilege covers the records
522 F. Supp. 2d 1265 (S.D. Cal. 2007) Cited 22 times
Dismissing the plaintiff's claim for a declaratory judgment asserting the § 512 safe harbors because the § 512 safe harbors were affirmative defenses, not a separate cause of action
Holding that FIRREA's limitations period applies retroactively so long as retroactive application does not revive a "stale" claim; claims are stale if the applicable limitations period expired prior to the FDIC's appointment as receiver
Finding counterclaims duplicative where "[t]he allegations of defendant's counterclaims, as a defense, will be before the trial court under other allegations of the answer. No declaratory judgment is necessary for a determination of the controversy in this case."