Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Waffle House, Inc.
534 U.S. 279 (2002) Cited 1,486 times 15 Legal AnalysesHolding that a private arbitration agreement between an employee and an employer could not bind a nonparty governmental agency, the EEOC, and thus that the agreement—which was enforceable against the employee under the Federal Arbitration Act—did not limit the types of remedies the agency could seek in an enforcement action it initiated under Title VII
Shrader v. CSX Transportation, Inc.
70 F.3d 255 (2d Cir. 1995) Cited 4,334 timesHolding that court has no jurisdiction to review order where it is not mentioned in notice of appeal that expressly lists other orders
Harsco Corp. v. Segui
91 F.3d 337 (2d Cir. 1996) Cited 910 timesHolding denial of a request for additional documents prior to entering into a contract does not support a negligent misrepresentation claim "unless that denial suggested falsely and deceitfully that those documents did not exist"
First Bank v. Motor Car
257 A.D.2d 287 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999) Cited 392 timesHolding that fraudulent inducement claim may be based on allegations that a defendant made "a misrepresentation of present facts is collateral to the contract (though it may have induced the plaintiff to sign the contract) and therefore involves a separate breach of a duty"
Deerfield Communications Corp. v. Chesebrough-Ponds
68 N.Y.2d 954 (N.Y. 1986) Cited 425 timesHolding that a false promise to not resell goods outside a specific geographical area "constitute[d] a misrepresentation" for purposes of fraud where geographical restrictions were not contained in the written agreement for the purchase of those goods
Telecom Intern. America v. AT&T Corp.
280 F.3d 175 (2d Cir. 2001) Cited 263 timesHolding that the plaintiff's “fraudulent inducement claim therefore fails because it is simply a breach of contract claim in the tort clothing of (factually unsupported) allegations of an intent to breach”
Danann Realty Corp. v. Harris
5 N.Y.2d 317 (N.Y. 1959) Cited 713 times 6 Legal AnalysesHolding that a similar disclaimer barred a fraudulent inducement claim without discussion of the level of sophistication of the parties
Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. v. Yanakas
7 F.3d 310 (2d Cir. 1993) Cited 219 timesHolding that a “generalized boilerplate” merger clause was insufficient to waive a claim for fraudulent inducement because the contract “contains no disclaimer as to the validity, regularity, or enforceability of the [contract] itself.”
Brunetti v. Musallam
11 A.D.3d 280 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004) Cited 156 times 2 Legal AnalysesIn Brunetti, the plaintiff claimed that the defendants, who had joined the company he originally founded, fraudulently induced him to sign an agreement divesting himself of 70% of his shares of the company and surrendering his employment rights by becoming an at-will employee, by falsely representing that a necessary investor had conditioned an investment of millions of dollars in the company upon his doing so.
Meinhard v. Salmon
249 N.Y. 458 (N.Y. 1928) Cited 1,170 times 6 Legal AnalysesHolding a co-venturer breached his duty of loyalty when he extended the lease on commercial property and excluded his co-venturer from the opportunity
Section 1332 - Diversity of citizenship; amount in controversy; costs
28 U.S.C. § 1332 Cited 111,339 times 572 Legal AnalysesHolding district court has jurisdiction over action between diverse citizens "where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000"
Section 1331 - Federal question
28 U.S.C. § 1331 Cited 97,390 times 134 Legal AnalysesFinding that in order to invoke federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiff's claims must arise "under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States."
Section 1367 - Supplemental jurisdiction
28 U.S.C. § 1367 Cited 61,757 times 78 Legal AnalysesHolding that in civil actions proceeding in federal court based solely on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the district court "shall not have supplemental jurisdiction" over "claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule . . . 24" or "over claims by persons . . seeking to intervene as plaintiffs under Rule 24," if "exercising supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of section 1332"
Rule 59 - New Trial; Altering or Amending a Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 Cited 43,419 times 66 Legal AnalysesAllowing a party to move to alter or amend a judgment "no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment"
Section 1391 - Venue generally
28 U.S.C. § 1391 Cited 27,804 times 197 Legal AnalysesFinding that venue lies where a "substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim" occurred
Section 1962 - Prohibited activities
18 U.S.C. § 1962 Cited 15,872 times 60 Legal AnalysesSpecifying prohibited activities
Section 1961 - Definitions
18 U.S.C. § 1961 Cited 14,950 times 72 Legal AnalysesDefining what the terms “person” and “enterprise” include
Section 1341 - Frauds and swindles
18 U.S.C. § 1341 Cited 13,401 times 104 Legal AnalysesRelating to mail fraud
Section 1343 - Fraud by wire, radio, or television
18 U.S.C. § 1343 Cited 11,947 times 170 Legal AnalysesBarring fraudulent schemes "for obtaining money or property"
Section 1964 - Civil remedies
18 U.S.C. § 1964 Cited 6,087 times 41 Legal AnalysesGranting civil remedies for RICO violation