green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
3.1 score
“it is well recognized that pendency of an individual action does not excuse a class member from filing a valid request for exclusion.”
Treatment trajectory · 1904 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1904
1965
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Bank of America Corporation
it is well recognized that pendency of an individual action does not excuse a class member from filing a valid request for exclusion.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Ello v. Singh
Thus, “[m]ere conclusory statements that the claimant was disparaged by false statements are insufficient to state a defamation claim.” Scholastic, 124 F.Supp.2d at 849 ; see also Ford v. Clement, 834 F.Supp. 72, 78 (S.D.N.Y.1993) (holding that allegations of defamation were insufficient where they failed to “give [defendant] any notice whatsoever of the communications at issue”), aff'd, 29 F.3d 621 (2d Cir.1994).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Veilleux v. National Broadcasting Co., Inc.
“The manner of setting forth allegations is a matter of procedure, not substance, and a federal court [in a defamation case] cannot be bound by a state’s technical pleading rules.” Asay v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 594 F.2d 692, 698 (8th Cir.1979); see also Ford v. Clement, 834 F.Supp. 72, 78 (S.D.N.Y.1993), aff'd without op., 29 F.3d 621 (2d Cir.1994) (“Rule 8(a), and not state law, controls the manner in which state law claims must be pled in federal court.”); Vantassell-Matin v. Nelson, 741 F.Supp. 698, 707 (N.D.Ill.1990) (“[b]eeause rules as to the sufficiency of pleadings are proc…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Huber
v.
Marine Midland Bank
v.
Marine Midland Bank
94-7201.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Jun 8, 1994.
Published
Citer courts: S.D. New York (1)
Huber
v.
Marine Midland Bank
NO. 94-7201
United States Court of Appeals,
Second Circuit.
June 08, 1994
1
Appeal From: W.D.N.Y.
2
REMANDED.