20 Cited authorities

Sprint Communications Co. v. APCC Services, Inc.
554 U.S. 269 (2008) Cited 811 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that a federal cause of action that permitted payphone operators to seek compensation from long-distance carriers for certain calls was assignable
Fin. One Pub. v. Lehman Bros. Spec. Financing
414 F.3d 325 (2d Cir. 2005) Cited 381 times
Holding that choice-of-law analysis is not required where there is no actual conflict
Manley v. Ambase Corp.
337 F.3d 237 (2d Cir. 2003) Cited 358 times
Holding that a new trial was unnecessary because the improper communication "did not convey any extra-record information" to the affected juror or "attempt to tell the juror how she should decide the case"
Conopco, Inc. v. Campbell Soup Company
95 F.3d 187 (2d Cir. 1996) Cited 273 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that when the statute of limitations period has not run, a defendant may claim laches but has the burden of proof to demonstrate it
Coalition for Gov. Procurement v. Fed. Prison
365 F.3d 435 (6th Cir. 2004) Cited 216 times
Acknowledging plurality decision in Sims.
Galli v. Metz
973 F.2d 145 (2d Cir. 1992) Cited 186 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that courts should avoid constructions that render terms meaningless
Matter of Schulz v. State
81 N.Y.2d 336 (N.Y. 1993) Cited 121 times
Finding an 11-month delay unreasonable in constitutional challenge brought against the procedural enactment of public financing laws
King v. Innovation Books
976 F.2d 824 (2d Cir. 1992) Cited 88 times
Holding eight-month delay did not rebut presumption of irreparable injury because plaintiff actively sought to enforce rights during the alleged delay by “repeatedly object[ing] to any use of a possessory credit, and attempt[ing] to obtain the screenplay, tentative credits and film for viewing”
Titus v. Wallick
306 U.S. 282 (1939) Cited 109 times
Holding under New York law that a plaintiff had “dominion over the claim for purposes of suit” because the assignment purported to “'sell, assign, transfer and set over' the chose in action” to the assignee
Newbro v. Freed
409 F. Supp. 2d 386 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) Cited 42 times
Finding that because the claims against defendants for unauthorized transfers "belong[ed] solely to plaintiff," and the absent parties could not assert a claim for return of those funds against defendants, there was no need to join the absent parties to the litigation
Section 213 - Actions to be commenced within six years: where not otherwise provided for; on contract; on sealed instrument; on bond or note, and mortgage upon real property; by state based on misappropriation of public property; based on mistake; by corporation against director, officer or stockholder; based on fraud
N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 213 Cited 5,566 times 8 Legal Analyses
Applying six-year statute of limitations to actions "for which no limitation is specifically prescribed by law"
Section 1610 - Exceptions to the immunity from attachment or execution
28 U.S.C. § 1610 Cited 456 times 15 Legal Analyses
Abrogating attachment immunity of property of a foreign state when the property is “used for commercial activity in the United States”

NML Capital, Ltd. v. The Republic of Argentina

20 Cited authorities

Holding that a federal cause of action that permitted payphone operators to seek compensation from long-distance carriers for certain calls was assignable

Holding that choice-of-law analysis is not required where there is no actual conflict

Holding that a new trial was unnecessary because the improper communication "did not convey any extra-record information" to the affected juror or "attempt to tell the juror how she should decide the case"

Holding that when the statute of limitations period has not run, a defendant may claim laches but has the burden of proof to demonstrate it

Acknowledging plurality decision in Sims.

Holding that courts should avoid constructions that render terms meaningless

Finding an 11-month delay unreasonable in constitutional challenge brought against the procedural enactment of public financing laws

Holding eight-month delay did not rebut presumption of irreparable injury because plaintiff actively sought to enforce rights during the alleged delay by “repeatedly object[ing] to any use of a possessory credit, and attempt[ing] to obtain the screenplay, tentative credits and film for viewing”

Holding under New York law that a plaintiff had “dominion over the claim for purposes of suit” because the assignment purported to “'sell, assign, transfer and set over' the chose in action” to the assignee

Finding that because the claims against defendants for unauthorized transfers "belong[ed] solely to plaintiff," and the absent parties could not assert a claim for return of those funds against defendants, there was no need to join the absent parties to the litigation

Applying six-year statute of limitations to actions "for which no limitation is specifically prescribed by law"

Abrogating attachment immunity of property of a foreign state when the property is “used for commercial activity in the United States”