Frummer v. Hilton Hotels Int'l, Inc., 229 N.E.2d 696 (NY 1967). · Go Syfert
Search
Frummer v. Hilton Hotels Int'l, Inc., 229 N.E.2d 696 (NY 1967). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
27 citation events (11 in the last 25 years) across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Jazini v. Nissan Motor Company, Ltd. (ca2, 1998-06-29)
Treatment trajectory · 1977 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1977 2001 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Jazini v. Nissan Motor Company, Ltd. (2×)
2d Cir. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See Koehler v. Bank of Bermuda Ltd., 101 F.3d 863, 865 (2d Cir.1996). 14 To establish that a subsidiary is an agent of the parent, the plaintiff must show that the subsidiary "does all the business which [the parent corporation] could do were it here by its own officials." Frummer v. Hilton Hotels Int'l, Inc., 19 N.Y.2d 533, 537 , 281 N.Y.S.2d 41 , 227 N.E.2d 851 , remittitur amended, 20 N.Y.2d 737 , 283 N.Y.S.2d 99 , 229 N.E.2d 696 , and cert. denied, 389 U.S. 923 , 88 S.Ct. 241 , 19 L.Ed.2d 266 (1967).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Pneuma-Flo Systems, Inc. v. Universal MacHinery Corp. (2×)
S.D.N.Y. · 1978 · signal: see also · confidence low
A non-resident defendant may subject itself to the personal jurisdiction of a New York court under CPLR § 301 if it does business in this State “. . . not occasionally or casually, but with a fair measure of permanence and continuity,” Tauza v. Susquehanna Coal Co., 220 N.Y. 259 , 115 N.E. 915 (1917); see also Frummer v. Hilton Hotels Inti., Inc., 19 N.Y.2d 533 , 281 N.Y.S.2d 41 , 227 N.E.2d 851 , remittitur amended, 20 N.Y.2d 737 , 283 N.Y.S.2d 99 , 229 N.E.2d 696 , cert. den., 389 U.S. 923 , 88 S.Ct. 241 , 19 L.Ed.2d 266 (1967).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Jack Frummer
v.
Hilton Hotels International, Inc.
New York Court of Appeals.
Jul 7, 1967.
229 N.E.2d 696
Cited by 8 opinions  |  Published

Motion to amend remittitur granted. Return of remittitur requested and, when returned, it will be amended by adding thereto the following: Upon the appeal herein there was presented and necessarily passed upon a question under the Constitution of the United States, viz.: Defendant British corporation contended that it was deprived of due process in violation of its rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The Court of Appeals held that there was no violation of defendant’s constitutional rights. [See 19 N Y 2d 533.]