§Why CasetextPricing

Hang Hing Loong Trading Company Limited v. Inco Limited Liability Company

REPLY BRIEF to Opposition to Motion

14 Cited authorities

  1. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio

    475 U.S. 574 (1986)   Cited 113,131 times   38 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, on summary judgment, antitrust plaintiffs "must show that the inference of conspiracy is reasonable in light of the competing inferences of independent action or collusive action that could not have harmed" them

  2. Jiminez v. All American

    503 F.3d 247 (3d Cir. 2007)   Cited 672 times
    Holding that a district court may disregard this type of affidavit unless there is independent evidence to bolster the contradictory testimony

  3. Weichert Co. Realtors v. Ryan

    128 N.J. 427 (N.J. 1992)   Cited 453 times
    Holding that commercial real estate broker could not establish that an implied contract to pay brokerage commission existed because buyer "not only withheld his assent to the terms of the offer, declining to sign [letter specifying brokerage commission], but also expressed some reluctance about agreeing to pay the full commission on closing."

  4. Shelcusky v. Garjulio

    172 N.J. 185 (N.J. 2002)   Cited 107 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that while "ordinarily, the jury considers issues of proximate cause," "courts may resolve for themselves the question of legal or proximate causation if they conclude that no reasonable jury could find such causation on the record presented."

  5. The Malaker Corp. v. First Jersey National Bank

    163 N.J. Super. 463 (App. Div. 1978)   Cited 141 times
    Holding that bank's oral promise in October 1970 to lend $150,000 for January, February and March of 1971 was not "clear and definite promise" because it did not describe a promise of "sufficient definition."

  6. West Caldwell v. Caldwell

    26 N.J. 9 (N.J. 1958)   Cited 208 times
    Setting forth the general rules of contract interpretation

  7. State v. Ernst & Young, L.L.P.

    386 N.J. Super. 600 (App. Div. 2006)   Cited 43 times
    Observing that “[i]t is well-settled that parties injured by a breach of contract have a common law obligation to take reasonable steps to mitigate their damages” (footnote and citation omitted)

  8. McDonald v. Mianecki

    79 N.J. 275 (N.J. 1979)   Cited 90 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the implied warranty of habitability encompasses the potability of the water supply" in case of sale of home by a builder-vendor

  9. Ingraham v. Trowbridge Builders

    297 N.J. Super. 72 (App. Div. 1997)   Cited 44 times
    Noting that the APA does not distinguish between substantive and interpretative rules

  10. Toyota Indus. Trucks v. Citizens Nat. Bank

    611 F.2d 465 (3d Cir. 1979)   Cited 54 times
    In Toyota Industrial Trucks we found no need to predict whether the Pennsylvania courts would impose a duty to mitigate upon the seller in a letter of credit case, because in that case no duty to mitigate had been established.

  11. Section 2A:14-1 - 6 years

    N.J. Stat. § 2A:14-1   Cited 941 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Providing that the statute of limitations for unjust enrichment claims in New Jersey is six years

  12. Section 2A:14-24 - Acknowledgment or new promise

    N.J. Stat. § 2A:14-24   Cited 15 times

    In actions at law grounded on any simple contract, no acknowledgment or promise by words only shall be deemed sufficient evidence of a new or continuing contract, so as to take any case out of the operation of this chapter, or to deprive any person of the benefit thereof, unless such acknowledgment or promise shall be made or continued by or in some writing to be signed by the party chargeable thereby. Where there shall be 2 or more joint contractors or executors or administrators of any contractor