green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
9.9 score
G Cite
cited 3× by 1 distinct case ·
“It is clear that when a decision turns on the meaning or construction of words in a statute ... then a legal question is presented for the court to decide.”
cited 3× by 1 distinct case ·
“The Supreme Court has not informed us otherwise — either indirectly or by doctrinal development.”
Treatment trajectory · 1986 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1986
2006
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 43 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Rudetsky v. O'DOWD
But cf. Islamic Republic of Iran v. Pahlavi, 62 N.Y.2d 474, 484 , 478 N.Y.S.2d 597, 602 , 467 N.E.2d 245, 250 (1984) (diverging from federal doctrine on whether alternative forum must be available to consider forum non conveniens claims), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1108 , 105 S.Ct. 783 , 83 L.Ed.2d 778 (1985).
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
640 Broadway Renaissance Co. v. Cuomo
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
the supreme court has not informed us otherwise - either indirectly or by doctrinal development.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Goodman
it is clear that when a decision turns on the meaning or construction of words in a statute ... then a legal question is presented for the court to decide.
discussed
Cited "see"
Employees Retirement Sys. for the City of Providence v. Rohner
The doctrine of forum non conveniens, codified in CPLR 327, permits a court to stay or dismiss an action where it finds "that in the interest of substantial justice the action should be heard in another forum." CPLR 327 requires that "balancing of many factors," and the decision to retain jurisdiction over a dispute is within the motion court's discretion ( Al Rushaid v Pictet & Cie , 28 NY3d 316, 332 [2016]; see Islamic Republic of Iran v Pahlavi , 62 NY2d 474, 479 [1984], cert denied 469 US 1108 [1985]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Alston v. Divine Bros. Co.
Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in dismissing this strict products liability personal injury action on the ground of forum non conveniens (CPLR 327[a]; see Jackam v Nature's Bounty, Inc. , 70 AD3d 1000 [2d Dept 2010]; see generally Islamic Republic of Iran v Pahlavi , 62 NY2d 474, 478-479 [1984], cert denied 469 US 1108 [1985]).
discussed
Cited "see"
J.G. v. Goldfinger
The Covecastles defendants, the only remaining defendants in the case, did not meet their "heavy burden" of establishing that the balance of the forum non conveniens factors points "strongly in [their] favor" ( Elmaliach v Bank of China Ltd. , 110 AD3d 192, 208 [1st Dept 2013]; see Islamic Republic of Iran v Pahlavi , 62 NY2d 474, 478-479 [1984], cert denied 469 US 1108 [1985]).
discussed
Cited "see"
J.G. v. Goldfinger
The Covecastles defendants, the only remaining defendants in the case, did not meet their "heavy burden" of establishing that the balance of the forum non conveniens factors points "strongly in [their] favor" ( Elmaliach v Bank of China Ltd. , 110 AD3d 192, 208 [1st Dept 2013]; see Islamic Republic of Iran v Pahlavi , 62 NY2d 474, 478-479 [1984], cert denied 469 US 1108 [1985]).
discussed
Cited "see"
D&R Global Selections, S.L. v. Bodega Olegario Falcon Pineiro
Here, the record demonstrates that defendant failed to establish that the balance of the forum non conveniens factors point strongly in its favor ( see Swaney v Academy Bus Tours of N.Y., Inc. , 158 AD3d 437 , 438 [1st Dept 2018]; see generally Islamic Republic of Iran v Pahlavi , 62 NY2d 474, 478-479 [1984], cert denied 469 US 1108 [1985]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Pyle v. Pfizer Inc.
Here, defendants failed to establish that the balance of the forum non conveniens factors points "strongly in their favor" ( Bacon v Nygard , 160 AD3d 565 , 565 [1st Dept 2018] [internal quotation marks and brackets omitted]; see generally Islamic Republic of Iran v Pahlavi , 62 NY2d 474, 478-479 [1984], cert denied 469 US 1108 [1985]), or that the action lacks a substantial nexus to New York.
discussed
Cited "see"
Matter of Dinshaw
The Surrogate properly dismissed the petition on the ground of forum non conveniens (CPLR 327[a]; see Islamic Republic of Iran v Pahlavi , 62 NY2d 474, 478-479 [1984], cert denied 469 US 1108 [1985]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Claude v. Autobus Fleur De Lys, Inc.
A court may stay or dismiss an action where it finds, in the "interest of substantial justice," that the action "should be heard in another forum" (CPLR 327 [a]; see Islamic Republic of Iran v Pahlavi , 62 NY2d 474, 478-479 [1984], cert denied 469 US 1108 [1985]; Gozzo v First Am.
cited
Cited "see"
Wild v. University of Pennsylvania
Trucking, Inc., 61 AD3d 964, 966 [2009]; see Islamic Republic of Iran v Pahlavi, 62 NY2d 474, 479 [1984], cert denied 469 US 1108 [1985]; Matter of OxyContin II, 76 AD3d 1019 , 1020-1021 [2010]).
cited
Cited "see"
Wild v. University of Pennsylvania
Trucking, Inc., 61 AD3d 964, 966 [2009]; see Islamic Republic of Iran v Pahlavi, 62 NY2d 474, 479 [1984], cert denied 469 US 1108 [1985]; Matter of OxyContin II, 76 AD3d 1019 , 1020-1021 [2010]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Jackam v. Nature's Bounty, Inc.
The court’s determination will not be disturbed on appeal unless the court has failed to properly consider all the relevant factors” (Prestige Brands, Inc. v Hogan & Hartson, LLP, 65 AD3d 1028,1028-1029 [2009] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Islamic Republic of Iran v Pahlavi, 62 NY2d 474 [1984], cert denied 469 US 1108 [1985]; Harleysville Ins.
discussed
Cited "see"
Avery v. Pfizer, Inc.
Under these circumstances, the court properly granted defendant’s motion (see Nicholson v Pfizer, Inc., 278 AD2d 143 [2000]; see generally Islamic Republic of Iran v Pahlavi, 62 NY2d 474, 478-479 [1984], cert denied 469 US 1108 [1985]).
discussed
Cited "see"
American BankNote Corp. v. Daniele
Co., 29 NY2d 356, 361 [1972] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see Islamic Republic of Iran v Pahlavi, 62 NY2d 474, 478 [1984] [“our courts are not required to add to their financial and administrative burdens by entertaining litigation which does not have any connection with this State”], cert denied 469 US 1108 [1985]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Lenchyshyn v. Pelko Electric, Inc.
Those primarily concern whether the foreign country’s court had personal jurisdiction over the judgment debtor and subject matter jurisdiction over the case (see, CPLR 5304 [a] [2]; [b] [1]; 5305); whether it was an impartial tribunal utilizing procedures compatible with due process of law (see, CPLR 5304 [a] [1]); and whether enforcing the foreign country money judgment would be unfair, work a fraud, or violate New York’s public policy (see, CPLR 5304 [b] [2]-[7]; see generally, Islamic Republic of Iran v Pahlavi, 94 AD2d 374, 378 , affd 62 NY2d 474 , cert denied 469 US 1108 ; Dunstan v H…
discussed
Cited "see"
Premier Products Inc. v. Marjam Supply Co.
Upon our review of the relevant factors in this case, we find that the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds of forum non conveniens (see, CPLR 327; see generally, Islamic Republic of Iran v Pahlavi, 62 NY2d 474, 478-479 , cert denied 469 US 1108 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
Siegel Transfer, Inc. v. Carrier Express, Inc.
See Vosch v. Werner Continental, Inc., 734 F.2d 149 (3d Cir.1984), cert. denied 469 U.S. 1108 , 105 S.Ct. 784 , 83 L.Ed.2d 779 (1985) (holding that section 11708(a) of the Act provides the only basis for private enforcement of the Act).
discussed
Cited "see"
Barocas v. Gorenstein
Therefore, we conclude that "[t]he defendants have not carried their burden of establishing that litigation in New York would be inconvenient and that the ends of justice and the convenience of the parties would best be served if the litigation were to proceed elsewhere” (Broida v Bancroft, 103 AD2d 88, 92 , supra; see, Islamic Republic of Iran v Pahlavi, 62 NY2d 474, 479 , cert denied 469 US 1108 ; Banco Ambrosiano, S.p.A. v Artoc Bank & Trust, 62 NY2d 65, 74 ; Bader & Bader v Ford, 66 AD2d 642, 645 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
William P. Cheng v. Commissioner Internal Revenue Service
See Wolf v. Banco Nacional de Mexico, S.A., 721 F.2d 660, 662 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1108 , 105 S.Ct. 784 , 83 L.Ed.2d 778 (1985); Chacon v. Babcock, 640 F.2d 221, 222 (9th Cir.1981); Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(d) advisory committee’s note on 1946 amendment (“[A] partial summary ‘judgment’ is not a final judgment, and, therefore, ... is not appealable.”).
cited
Cited "see"
Vicki H. Brown v. Hartshorne Public School District 1
See Poolaw v. City of Anadarko, 738 F.2d 364 , 366 n. 1 (10th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1108 , 105 S.Ct. 784 , 83 L.Ed.2d 779 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
Metzner v. D.H. Blair & Co.
See SEC v. Blinder, Robinson & Co., 542 F.Supp. 468, 470, 475 (D.Colo.1982) (even if evidence did not demonstrate active role of brokerage firm’s president in making of misstatements and omissions, court “would hold [him] liable for the acts of sales representatives whom he supervised and for whose misconduct he is responsible under Section 20 of the 1934 Act”), aff'd, [1983-84 Transfer Binder] Fed.Sec.L.Rep. para. 99,491 (10th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1108 , 105 S.Ct. 783 , 83 L.Ed.2d 777 (1985); cf. Wool, 818 F.2d at 1442 (plaintiff adequately alleged section 20(a) claim again…
discussed
Cited "see"
Walters v. City of Atlanta
Cf. Heritage Homes v. Seekonk Water District, 670 F.2d 1 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1120 , 102 S.Ct. 2934 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1333 (1982); accord, Poolaw v. City of Anadarko, 738 F.2d 364 (10th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1108 , 105 S.Ct. 784 , 83 L.Ed.2d 779 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
Dennis A. Walters, Jr., Cross-Appellant v. City of Atlanta, Cross-Appellee. Dennis A. Walters, Jr. v. City of Atlanta, Carole L. Mumford, Movant-Appellant. Dennis A. Walters, Jr. v. City of Atlanta
Cf. Heritage Homes v. Seekonk Water District, 670 F.2d 1 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1120 , 102 S.Ct. 2934 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1333 (1982); accord, Poolaw v. City of Anadarko, 738 F.2d 364 (10th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1108 , 105 S.Ct. 784 , 83 L.Ed.2d 779 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Gowen v. Helly Nahmad Gallery, Inc.
In this action seeking return of a painting allegedly looted by the Nazi-occupied French government, the motion court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of forum non conveniens ( see Swaney v Academy Bus Tours of N.Y., Inc. , 158 AD3d 437 [1st Dept 2018]; see also Islamic Republic of Iran v Pahlavi , 62 NY2d 474, 478-479 [1984], cert denied 469 US 1108 [1985]).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Bacon v. Nygard
Defendants did not meet their "heavy burden" of establishing that the balance of the forum non conveniens factors points "strongly in [their] favor" ( Elmaliach v Bank of China Ltd. , 110 AD3d 192, 208 [1st Dept 2013]; see also Islamic Republic of Iran v Pahlavi , 62 NY2d 474, 478 [1984], cert denied 469 US 1108 [1985]).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hall v. Camacho
However, in addition to the fact that the accident occurred in New York, plaintiff received considerable medical treatment here, including at a hospital emergency room, as well as continuing treatment at orthopedic and general practitioners' offices in New York ( see Krieger v Glatter , 129 AD3d 536 [1st Dept 2015]; Brodherson v Ponte & Sons , 209 AD2d 276 [1st Dept 1994]; see also generally Islamic Republic of Iran v Pahlavi , 62 NY2d 474 [1984], cert denied 469 US 1108 [1985]).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
May v. US HIFU, LLC
The factors to be considered in adjudicating such a motion, including the residency of the parties and whether a New York court will be burdened by the litigation, were duly considered by the Supreme Court, and do not militate in favor of dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against those defendants (see Prestige Brands, Inc. v Hogan & Hartson, LLP, 65 AD3d 1028 [2009]; see also Islamic Republic of Iran v Pahlavi, 62 NY2d 474, 479 [1984], cert denied 469 US 1108 [1985]).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
May v. US HIFU, LLC
The factors to be considered in adjudicating such a motion, including the residency of the parties and whether a New York court will be burdened by the litigation, were duly considered by the Supreme Court, and do not militate in favor of dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against those defendants (see Prestige Brands, Inc. v Hogan & Hartson, LLP, 65 AD3d 1028 [2009]; see also Islamic Republic of Iran v Pahlavi, 62 NY2d 474, 479 [1984], cert denied 469 US 1108 [1985]).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Sanwa Bank, Ltd. v. Kato
See, e.g., Islamic Republic of Iran v. Pahlavi, 62 N.Y.2d 474 , 478 N.Y.S.2d 597 , 467 N.E.2d 245 (1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1108 , 105 S.Ct. 783 , 83 L.Ed.2d 778 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Nevayaktewa v. Hopi Tribe
As other jurisdictions have explained. “[i]t is a well-established principle that in most instances an appellant may not present arguments in the Court of Appeals that it did not properly raise below.” Rothman v. Hospital Service of Southern California, 510 F.2d 956, 960 (9th Cir.1975); see also Wolf v. Banco Nacional de Mexico, S.A., 739 F.2d 1458, 1460 (9th Cir.1984), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 1108 , 105 S.Ct. 784 , 83 L.Ed.2d 778 (1985); United States v. Carlson, 900 F.2d 1346, 1349 (9th Cir.1990).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Kirkaldy v. Hertz Corporation
Moreover, upon our review of the relevant factors in this case, we find that the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the motions of the defendants’ Hertz Corporation and Ford Motor Company to dismiss the complaints on the ground of forum non conveniens (see, CPLR 327; Barocas v Gorenstein, 189 AD2d 847 ; Premier Prods, v Marjam Supply Co., 209 AD2d 498 ; see also generally, Islamic Rep. of Iran v Pahlavi, 62 NY2d 474, 478-479 , cert denied 469 US 1108 ; cf, Sarfaty v Rainbow Helicopters, 221 AD2d 618 [decided herewith]).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Midway Finance Corporation, Ltd. v. William H. Walters, and United States of America, Counter-Claimant, Hy Moss Rosanne Moss, Counter-Defendants, Midway Finance Corporation, Ltd. v. William H. Walters, and Eleanor E. Walters, and United States of America, Counter-Claimant, Cross-Claimant v. Hy Moss and Rosanne Moss, Counter-Claimant
However, where the issue is first raised in a motion made after the entry of the district court's final judgment, the issue "was not suitably raised below and is not properly before this Court." Rothman, 510 F.2d at 960 ; see also Wolf v. Banco Nacional de Mexico, S.A., 739 F.2d 1458, 1460 (9th Cir.1984) (The district court "could have held that by bypassing the issue in the summary judgment proceedings [the defendant] had forgone the opportunity to raise the issue [even in a subsequent motion to stay proceedings to enforce the judgment]."), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1108 (1985). 7 Therefore, we …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Carter v. Sedgwick County
See also Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433 , 103 S.Ct. at 1939 (“[D]is- trict court to determine what fee is ‘reasonable.’ ”) Given the copious and detailed evidence offered in this case, “[t]he district court’s finding ... [of the] hours ... spent on the issues for which fees were awarded is not clearly erroneous,” V-1 Oil, 902 F.2d at 1489 , and comports with the assumption that the “court saw the attorney’s work first hand,” Poolaw v. City of Anadarko, Oklahoma, 738 F.2d 364, 368 (10th Cir.1984), ce rt. denied, 469 U.S. 1108 , 105 S.Ct. 784 , 83 L.Ed.2d 779 (1985), and has a “s…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
55 Fair empl.prac.cas. 883, 56 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 40,699 E. Jean (Calloway) Carter v. Sedgwick County, Kansas the Board of County Commissioners of Sedgwick County and Michael R. Brand, and Jon R. Cameron Donald E. Gragg Tom Scott Bernard Hentzen and Timothy Witsman
See also Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433 , 103 S.Ct. at 1939 ("[D]istrict court to determine what fee is 'reasonable.' ") Given the copious and detailed evidence offered in this case, "[t]he district court's finding ... [of the] hours ... spent on the issues for which fees were awarded is not clearly erroneous," V-1 Oil, 902 F.2d at 1489 , and comports with the assumption that the "court saw the attorney's work first hand," Poolaw v. City of Anadarko, Oklahoma, 738 F.2d 364, 368 (10th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1108 , 105 S.Ct. 784 , 83 L.Ed.2d 779 (1985), and has a "superior understanding of …
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
EEOC v. State of NY
See also League of Women Voters v. Nassau County Board of Supervisors, 737 F.2d 155 (2d Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1108 , 105 S.Ct. 783 , 83 L.Ed.2d 778 (1985).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. New York
See also League of Women Voters v. Nassau County Board of Supervisors, 737 F.2d 155 (2d Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1108 , 105 S.Ct. 783 , 83 L.Ed.2d 778 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Finch v. City of Vernon
Evid. 103(a); Fed.R.Civ.P. 61); see also Perry v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 734 F.2d 1441, 1446 (11th Cir.1984) (party asserting error on appeal has burden of showing prejudice to substantial rights), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1108 , 105 S.Ct. 784 , 83 L.Ed.2d 778 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Leonard Finch, Cross-Appellant v. City of Vernon, Etc., Cross-Appellee, Clark Rogers, J.C. Armstrong, Jr., Coleman Armstrong, Cross-Appellees. John A. Reddick, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Rubert D. Reddick, Deceased, Cross-Appellant v. City of Vernon, Etc., Cross-Appellees, Harrell Sapp, Etc., J.C. Armstrong, Jr., Coleman Armstrong, Cross-Appellees. Leonard Finch, Cross-Appellant v. The City of Vernon, Cross-Appellee, Clark Rogers, J.C. Armstrong, Jr., John A. Reddick, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Rubert D. Reddick, Deceased v. The City of Vernon, J.C. Armstrong, Jr., Coleman Armstrong
See Hunt v. Marchetti, 824 F.2d 916, 920 (11th Cir.1987) (error in exclusion of evidence not grounds for reversal unless it affects substantial rights) (citing Fed.R.Evid. 103(a); Fed.R.Civ.P. 61); see also Perry v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 734 F.2d 1441, 1446 (11th Cir.1984) (party asserting error on appeal has burden of showing prejudice to substantial rights), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1108 , 105 S.Ct. 784 , 83 L.Ed.2d 778 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Budimir Matek Eleanor Matek Martin Matek Marijan Dusevic Mario Forgiarini Mary L. Forgiarini John Zivkovic Judith Zivkovic Vinco Marich Cvita Marich, and Rex Martin Carolyn Martin David A. Hill Diane S. Hill Ruth Thayer v. Joseph Murat Veronica M. Murat Chester J. Hummel Celia A. Hummel Ronald A. Lebetsamer Minor, Popeny & Lebetsamer Port Welding & MacHine Works, Inc. Profit Sharing Trust Fund West Coast Diesel, Inc. Orange Production Credit Association, Budimir Matek Eleanor Matek Martin Matek Marijan Dusevic Mario Forgiarini Mary L. Forgiarini, and Rex Martin Carolyn Martin David A. Hill Diane S. Hill Ruth Thayer v. Joseph Murat Veronica M. Murat Port Welding & MacHine Works, Inc. Profit Sharing Trust Fund West Coast Diesel, Inc., Budimir Matek Eleanor Matek Martin Matek Marijan Dusevic Mario Forgiarini Mary L. Forgiarini John Zivkovic Judith Zivkovic Vinco Marich Cvita Marich, and Rex Martin Carolyn Martin David A. Hill Diane S. Hill Ruth Thayer v. Joseph Murat Veronica M. Murat Chester J. Hummel Celia A. Hummel Ronald A. Lebetsamer Minor, Popeney & Lebetsamer Port Welding & MacHine Works, Inc. Profit Sharing Trust Fund West Coast Diesel, Inc. Orange Production Credit Association, Budimir Matek Eleanor Matek Martin Matek Marijan Dusevic Mario Forgiarini Mary L. Forgiarini Rex Martin Carolyn M. Martin David A. Hill Diane S. Hill Ruth Thayer v. Joseph Murat Veronica M. Murat Chester J. Hummel Celia A. Hummel Port Welding & MacHine Works, Inc. Profit Sharing Trust Fund West Coast Diesel, Inc., and Ronald A. Lebetsamer Minor, Popeney & Lebetsamer, Budimir Matek Eleanor Matek Martin Matek Marijan Dusevic Rex Martin Carolyn M. Martin David A. Hill Diane S. Hill Ruth Thayer, Plaintiffs v. Joseph Murat Veronica M. Murat Port Welding & MacHine Works, Inc. Profit Sharing Trust Fund West Coast Diesel, Inc., and Ronald A. Lebetsamer Minor, Popeney & Lebetsamer, Orange Production Credit Association, Budimir Matek v. Joseph Murat Veronica M. Murat Port Welding & MacHine Works, Inc. Profit Sharing Trust Fund
See Williamson, 645 F.2d at 422 ; see also Wolf v. Banco Nacional de Mexico, 549 F.Supp. 841 , 852 n. 17 (N.D.Cal.1982) (general partnership interest is not a security because the partners are mutual agents), rev'd on other grounds, 739 F.2d 1458, 1464 (9th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1108 , 105 S.Ct. 784 , 83 L.Ed.2d 778 (1985). 42 In the case at bar, the partnership agreement clearly creates a standard general partnership which on its face provided the plaintiffs with sufficient power to protect their investments.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Matek v. Murat
See Williamson, 645 F.2d at 422 ; see also Wolf v. Banco Nacional de Mexico, 549 F.Supp. 841 , 852 n. 17 (N.D.Cal.1982) (general partnership interest is not a security because the partners are mutual agents), rev’d on other grounds, 739 F.2d 1458, 1464 (9th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1108 , 105 S.Ct. 784 , 83 L.Ed.2d 778 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Indag, S.A. v. Irridelco Corp.
See Indag S.A., 37 N.Y.2d at 525 , 375 N.Y.S.2d at 298 , 337 N.E.2d at 750 ; see also Islamic Republic of Iran v. Pahlavi, 62 N.Y.2d 474, 478-79, 484 , 478 N.Y.S.2d 597, 599, 602 , 467 N.E.2d 245, 247, 250 (1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1108 , 105 S.Ct. 783 , 83 L.Ed.2d 778 (1985).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Blinder, Robinson & Co., Inc.
v.
Securities and Exchange Commission
v.
Securities and Exchange Commission
No. 84-649.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 7, 1985.
Published
Citer courts: S.D. New York (1) · M.D. Pennsylvania (1)
C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.