Cortec Indus., Inc. v. Sum Holding L.P.
949 F.2d 42 (2d Cir. 1991) Cited 2,957 timesHolding that “[w]here plaintiff has actual notice of all the information in the movant's papers and has relied upon these documents in framing the complaint the necessity of translating a Rule 12(b) motion into one under Rule 56 is largely dissipated” and affirming the district court's consideration of a stock purchase agreement, offering memorandum, and stock warrant that were “integral to [plaintiffs'] complaint”
Kramer v. Time Warner Inc.
937 F.2d 767 (2d Cir. 1991) Cited 1,988 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that the Court may consider matters of which judicial notice may be taken under Federal Rule of Evidence 201
Rothman v. Gregor
220 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2000) Cited 1,322 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that "the date of the filing of the motion to amend constitutes the date the action was commenced for statute of limitations purposes" when "the plaintiff seeks to add a new defendant" (quoting Nw. Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Alberts , 769 F. Supp. 498, 510 (S.D.N.Y.1991) )
Murphy v. American Home Prod
58 N.Y.2d 293 (N.Y. 1983) Cited 1,847 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that the limitation period for commencing a judicial action for unlawful discrimination in employment is the three-year period of N YCiv.Prac.L. R. § 214
Rapps v. Jackson
503 U.S. 960 (1992) Cited 339 timesHolding that although the court declined to consider a stock purchase agreement, offering memorandum and warrant on a Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss, it could have viewed them without converting that motion into one for summary judgment where the non-moving party had notice of these documents because they were either in their possession or they had used them in bringing the action
Cosmas v. Hassett
886 F.2d 8 (2d Cir. 1989) Cited 860 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that recklessness by corporate officers had been adequately alleged where complaint contained allegations that a company had announced that its Chinese markets were an important source of revenue at the same time that the Chinese government had announced trade restrictions that were certain to curtail company sales
Sabetay v. Sterling Drug
69 N.Y.2d 329 (N.Y. 1987) Cited 456 timesFinding that an employer has the right to terminate an at-will employee at any time for any reason or for no reason, except where that right has been limited by express agreement
Kenford Co. v. Erie County
67 N.Y.2d 257 (N.Y. 1986) Cited 453 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that damages based on lost future profits "may not be merely speculative, possible or imaginary, but must be reasonably certain and directly traceable to the breach, not remote or the result of other intervening causes"
Arcadian Phosphates, Inc. v. Arcadian Corp.
884 F.2d 69 (2d Cir. 1989) Cited 285 timesHolding that "[t]he language of the [writing] . . . shows that [the parties] did not intend to be bound."
Madonna v. U.S.
878 F.2d 62 (2d Cir. 1989) Cited 160 timesGranting motion for judgment in favor of defendant as to plaintiff's fraud upon the court allegations because the plaintiff did not plead fraud with sufficient particularity