§Why CasetextPricing

Roling v. E*Trade Securities LLC

RESPONSE

37 Cited authorities

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.

    477 U.S. 242 (1986)   Cited 239,217 times   38 Legal Analyses
    Holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if "the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party"

  2. Waller v. Truck Ins. Exchange, Inc.

    11 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1995)   Cited 1,777 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, when extrinsic facts eliminate the potential for coverage, an insurer may decline to defend even if the complaint had suggested potential liability

  3. Badie v. Bank of America

    67 Cal.App.4th 779 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 1,282 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a credit card company could not introduce an alternative dispute resolution provision through a "bill stuffer" where nothing in the original agreement mentioned dispute resolution

  4. Dallas Aerospace, Inc. v. CIS Air Corp.

    352 F.3d 775 (2d Cir. 2003)   Cited 832 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that liability for negligent misrepresentation is imposed on those who are in a special position of confidence and trust with the injured party than that of an ordinary buyer and seller

  5. In re Barboza

    545 F.3d 702 (9th Cir. 2008)   Cited 662 times
    Holding that the malicious injury requirement is separate from the willful injury requirement

  6. Winet v. Price

    4 Cal.App.4th 1159 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 667 times
    In Winet, the California Court of Appeals interpreted Section 1542 as holding that only the outward expression of the parties was indicative of the releaser's state of mind. Based upon the rationale of Winet, Chief Judge Lambros rejected Gillig's attempt to establish his state of mind at the time of the execution of the release.

  7. Painewebber Inc. v. Bybyk

    81 F.3d 1193 (2d Cir. 1996)   Cited 473 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a provision requiring arbitration of "any and all controversies" indicates the parties' intent to submit to arbitration the very question of arbitrability

  8. Bay Cities Paving Grading v. Lawyers' Mutual Ins. Co.

    5 Cal.4th 854 (Cal. 1993)   Cited 423 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the word "related" as commonly understood and used encompasses both logical and causal connections

  9. Szetela v. Discover Bank

    97 Cal.App.4th 1094 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 222 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an adhesive contract for credit card services was procedurally unconscionable, notwithstanding the plaintiffs' ability to acquire the same services elsewhere

  10. Hartford Acc. Ind. v. Wesolowski

    33 N.Y.2d 169 (N.Y. 1973)   Cited 491 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding there was one "occurrence" under the event test when the insured vehicle struck one oncoming vehicle, ricocheted off, and struck a second vehicle more than 100 feet away and noting that there was "no intervening agent" and "in common understanding and parlance there was ... a single, inseparable ‘three-car accident’ "

  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 333,232 times   158 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

  12. 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 5,529 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Applying six-year statute of limitations to actions "for which no limitation is specifically prescribed by law"