green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
11.9 score
“where plaintiff has actual notice of all the information in the movant's papers and has relied upon in framing the complaint the necessity of translating a rule 12 motion into one under is largely dissipated”
Treatment trajectory · 1994 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1994
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Marram v. Kobrick Offshore Fund, Ltd.
where plaintiff has actual notice of all the information in the movant's papers and has relied upon in framing the complaint the necessity of translating a rule 12 motion into one under is largely dissipated
discussed
Cited "see"
NEW HAMPSHIRE HEALTH CARE ASS'N v. Governor
See Adams v. Bradshaw, 135 N.H. 7, 14 , 599 A.2d 481 (1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 960 , 112 S.Ct. 1560 , 118 L.Ed.2d 208 (1992). "[T]o be vested, a right must be more than a mere expectation based on an anticipation of the continuance of existing law; it must have become a title, legal or equitable, to the present or future enforcement of a demand, or a legal exemption from the demand of another." In the Matter of Goldman & Elliott, 151 N.H. 770, 774 , 868 A.2d 278 (2005) (quotation *162 omitted).
discussed
Cited "see"
New Hampshire Health Care Ass'n v. Governor
See Adams v. Bradshaw, 135 N.H. 7,14 (1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 960 (1992). “[T]o be vested, a right must be more than a mere expectation based on an anticipation of the continuance of existing law; it must have become a title, legal or equitable, to the present or future enforcement of a demand, or a legal exemption from the demand of another.” In the Matter of Goldman & Elliott, 151 N.H. 770, 774 (2005) (quotation omitted).
cited
Cited "see"
Tuttle v. MED. MAL. JOINT UNDERWRITING
See Adams v. Bradshaw, 135 N.H. 7, 14 , 599 A.2d 481 (1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 960 , 112 S.Ct. 1560 , 118 L.Ed.2d 208 (1992).
cited
Cited "see"
Tuttle v. New Hampshire Medical Malpractice Joint Underwriting Ass'n
See Adams v. Bradshaw, 135 N.H. 7, 14 (1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 960 (1992).
discussed
Cited "see"
Norra v. Harris County (In Re Norra)
See In re Moody, 77 B.R. 580, 590 (S.D.Tex.1987) (“Bankruptcy courts must resort to state law for an interpretation of state exemption rights in homesteads.”), aff'd, In re Moody, 862 F.2d 1194 , 1201 (5th Cir.1989), cert. denied, Moody v. Smith, 503 U.S. 960 , 112 S.Ct. 1562 , 118 L.Ed.2d 209 (1992); In re Leonard, 194 B.R. 807, 810 (Bankr.N.D.Tex.1996) (“[B]ankruptcy court must look to state law to interpret state homestead exemption rights.”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Madison Equities, LLC v. Condren (In Re Theatre Row Phase II Associates)
See Cortec Indus., Inc. v. Sum Holding L.P., 949 F.2d 42 , 48 (2d Cir.1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 960 , 112 S.Ct. 1561 , 118 L.Ed.2d 208 (1992) (the court considered documents that were attached to the motion to dismiss because the debtor had notice of the facts contained within the documents and the debtor relied on such facts in forming the complaint).
discussed
Cited "see"
White v. Mortgage Dynamics, Inc.
Biospherics, Inc. v. Forbes, Inc., 989 F.Supp. 748, 750 (D.Md.1997); see Cortee Industries, Inc. v. Sum Holding, L.P., 949 F.2d 42, 46-48 (2d Cir.1991) cert. denied, 503 U.S. 960 , 112 S.Ct. 1561 , 118 L.Ed.2d 208 (1992).
discussed
Cited "see"
Weston Funding, LLC v. Consorcio G Grupo Dina, S.A. De C.V.
See Cortec Indus., Inc. v. Sum Holding L.P., 949 F.2d 42 , 47 (2d Cir.1991) (“[T]he complaint is deemed to include any written instrument attached to it as an exhibit or any statements or documents incorporated in it by reference.”), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 960 , 112 S.Ct. 1561 , 118 L.Ed.2d 208 (1992); see also Barnum v. Millbrook Care L.P., 850 F.Supp. 1227, 1232-33 (S.D.N.Y.) (“[I]f the allegations of a complaint are contradicted by documents made a part thereof, the document controls and the court need not accept as true the allegations of the complaint.”), aff' d, 43 F.3d 1458 (2d …
discussed
Cited "see"
Fromm v. Boston Redevelopment Authority
See id., quoting Cortec Indus., Inc. v. Sum Holding, L.P., 949 F.2d 42 , 48 (2d Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 960 (1992) (“ ‘[T]he problem that arises when a court reviews statements extraneous to a complaint generally is the lack of notice to the plaintiff . . .
discussed
Cited "see"
Fadem v. Ford Motor Co.
See Cortec Industries, Inc. v. Sum Holding, L.P., 949 F.2d 42, 47 (2d Cir.1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 960 , 112 S.Ct. 1561 , 118 L.Ed.2d 208 (1992); Kramer v. Time Warner, Inc., 937 F.2d 767, 773 (2d Cir.1991).
cited
Cited "see"
Thomas v. Westchester County Health Care Corp.
See Cortee Indus., Inc. v. Sum Holding L.P., 949 F.2d 42 , 46-48 (2d Cir.1991) cert. denied, 503 U.S. 960 , 112 S.Ct. 1561 , 118 L.Ed.2d 208 (1992).
cited
Cited "see"
Harris v. New York State Department of Health
See Cortec Indus. v. Sum Holding L.P., 949 F.2d 42 , 47-48 (2d Cir.1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 960 , 112 S.Ct. 1561 , 118 L.Ed.2d 208 (1992). 2 .
cited
Cited "see"
Vogel v. Sands Bros. & Co., Ltd.
See Cortee Industries, Inc. v. Sum Holding L.P., 949 F.2d 42, 47-48 (2d Cir.1991), ce rt. denied, 503 U.S. 960 , 112 S.Ct. 1561 , 118 L.Ed.2d 208 (1992); I.
discussed
Cited "see"
Ryan v. Volpone Stamp Co., Inc.
See Cortec Industries, Inc. v. Sum Holding L.P., 949 F.2d 42, 47 (2nd Cir.1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 960 , 112 S.Ct. 1561 , 118 L.Ed.2d 208 (1992); Kramer v. Time Warner Inc., 937 F.2d 767, 773 (2nd Cir.1991).
cited
Cited "see"
Perks v. Town of Huntington
See Cortec Inds., Inc. v. Sum Holding L.P., 949 F.2d 42 , 48 (2d Cir.1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 960 , 112 S.Ct. 1561 , 118 L.Ed.2d 208 (1992).
discussed
Cited "see"
Barr v. Charterhouse Group International, Inc. (In Re Everfresh Beverages, Inc.)
See Cortee Indus., Inc. v. Sum Holding L.P., 949 F.2d 42 , 47 (2d Cir.1991), cert, denied, 503 U.S. 960 , 112 S.Ct. 1561 , 118 L.Ed.2d 208 (1992); Mil-grim Thomajan & Lee P.C. v. Nycal Corp., 775 F.Supp. 117, 121 (S.D.N.Y.1991) (citing Ko-pec v. Coughlin, 922 F.2d 152, 154-55 (2d Cir.1991)); Eisenberg v. Feiner (In re Ahead by a Length), 100 B.R. 157, 164 n. 2 (Bankr.
discussed
Cited "see"
Community Memorial Hospital v. Gordon (In Re Gordon)
See Cortec Industries, Inc. v. Sum Holding, L.P., 949 F.2d 42, 47 (2d Cir.1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 960 , 112 S.Ct. 1561 , 118 L.Ed.2d 208 (1992); ABF Capital Mgmt. v. Kidder Peabody & Co. (In re Granite Partners, L.P.), 210 B.R. 508, 514 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1997).
discussed
Cited "see"
Kreiss v. McCown De Leeuw & Co.
See Cortec Indus., Inc. v. Sum Holding L.P., 949 F.2d 42 , 47-48 (2d Cir.1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 960 , 112 S.Ct. 1561 , 118 L.Ed.2d 208 (1992) ("[T]he complaint is deemed to include any written instrument attached to it as an exhibit or any statements or documents incorporated in it by reference.”); Fed.
discussed
Cited "see"
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 90,418 Jay H. Koppel and Arnold E. Greenberg v. 4987 Corporation 498 Seventh Avenue Associates Peter L. Malkin Stanley Katzman John L. Loehr Martin D. Newman Wien, Malkin & Bettex and Donald A. Bettex, Garment Capitol Associates, Nominal-Defendant-Appellee
See Cortec Indus., Inc. v. Sum Holding L.P., 949 F.2d 42 , 46-48 (2d Cir.1991) (permitting consideration of certain documents referred to in the complaint on a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6)), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 960 , 112 S.Ct. 1561 , 118 L.Ed.2d 208 (1992). 4 In 1957, three individuals formed a general partnership, Garment Capitol Associates ("Associates"), to raise money to acquire the land and the commercial building located at 498 Seventh Avenue in Manhattan.
discussed
Cited "see"
Koppel v. 4987 Corp.
See Cortec Indus., Inc. v. Sum Holding L.P., 949 F.2d 42 , 46-48 (2d Cir.1991) (permitting consideration of certain documents referred to in the complaint on a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6)), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 960 , 112 S.Ct. 1561 , 118 L.Ed.2d 208 (1992).
discussed
Cited "see"
Greenfield, Stein & Senior, LLP v. Daley (In Re Daley)
See Cortee Indus., Inc. v. Sum Holding L.P., 949 F.2d 42 , 47 (2d Cir.1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 960 , 112 S.Ct. 1561 , 118 L.Ed.2d 208 (1992); see 2 Moore’s Federal Practice 3d, § 12.34[2] at 12-66 (3d ed.1997). 2 .
cited
Cited "see"
Miami Subs Corp. v. Murray Family Trust & Kenneth Dash Partnership
See Adams v. Bradshaw, 135 N.H. 7, 17 , 599 A.2d 481, 488 (1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 960 (1992).
cited
Cited "see"
Biospherics, Inc. v. Forbes, Inc.
See, Cortee Industries, Inc. v. Sum Holding, L.P., 949 F.2d 42, 46-48 (2d Cir.1991) cert. denied, 503 U.S. 960 , 112 S.Ct. 1561 , 118 L.Ed.2d 208 (1992).
cited
Cited "see"
Moses v. Citicorp Mortgage, Inc.
See Cortec Indus., Inc. v. Sum Holding L.P., 949 F.2d 42 , 48 (2d Cir.1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 960 , 112 S.Ct. 1561 , 118 L.Ed.2d 208 (1992).
discussed
Cited "see"
Durkin v. Shea
See Cortee Industries, Inc. v. Sum Holding, L.P., 949 F.2d 42, 47 (2d Cir.1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 960 , 112 S.Ct. 1561 , 118 L.Ed.2d 208 (1992); Kramer v. Time Warner, Inc., 937 F.2d 767, 773 (2d Cir.1991).
discussed
Cited "see"
In the Matter of Thomas Cullen Davis and Karen Joyce Davis, Debtors. Sandra Davis v. Thomas Cullen Davis
(2×)
See In re Moody, 77 B.R. 566, 578 (S.D.Tex.1987), aff'd, 862 F.2d 1194 (5th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 960 , 112 S.Ct. 1562 , 118 L.Ed.2d 209 (1992).
discussed
Cited "see"
Heathcote Associates v. Chittenden Trust Co.
See Cortec Industries, Inc. v. Sum Holding L.P., 949 F.2d 42, 48 (2d Cir.1991) (permitting consideration of warrant, offering memorandum, and stock purchase agreement because they were documents that plaintiff “had either in its possession or had knowledge of and upon which they relied in bringing suit”), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 960 , 112 S.Ct. 1561 , 118 L.Ed.2d 208 (1992); Sazerac Co. v. Falk, 861 F.Supp. 253, 257 (S.D.N.Y.1994) (considering instruments supplied by defendants in their 12(b)(6) motion but not attached to complaint); Kramer v. Time Warner Inc., 937 F.2d 767, 773-74 (2d.
discussed
Cited "see"
Murphy v. Cadillac Rubber & Plastics, Inc.
See Cortec Indus., Inc. v. Sum Holding L.P., 949 F.2d 42 , 47 (2d Cir.1991) (holding that it was appropriate to consider stock purchase agreement on motion to dismiss securities fraud action), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 960 , 112 S.Ct. 1561 , 118 L.Ed.2d 208 (1992); Cosmas v. Hassett, 886 F.2d 8, 13 (2d Cir.1989) (holding that court could not rely on annual report and other corporate documents in securities case unless they were attached to the pleadings or incorporated by reference); Goldman v. Belden, 754 F.2d 1059, 1065-66 (2d Cir.1985) (annual report that was not attached to amended pleading o…
cited
Cited "see"
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John E. CALHOON, Defendant-Appellant
See United States v. Langford, 946 F.2d 798, 801-02 (11th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 960 , 112 S.Ct. 1562 , 118 L.Ed.2d 209 (1992).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Calhoon
See United States v. Langford, 946 F.2d 798, 801-02 (11th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 960 , 112 S.Ct. 1562 , 118 L.Ed.2d 208 (1992).
cited
Cited "see"
Walsh v. City of Auburn
See Cortec Indus., Inc. v. Sum Holding L.P., 949 F.2d 42 , 47 (2d Cir.1991) cert. denied, 503 U.S. 960 , 112 S.Ct. 1561 , 118 L.Ed.2d 208 (1992).
discussed
Cited "see"
Trugman-Nash, Inc. v. New Zealand Dairy Board
See Cortec Industries, Inc. v. Sum Holding, L.P., 949 F.2d 42, 47 (2d Cir.1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 960 , 112 S.Ct. 1561 , 118 L.Ed.2d 208 (1992); Kramer v. Time Warner, Inc., 937 F.2d 767, 773 (2d Cir.1991).
discussed
Cited "see"
Bissell v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.
See Cortec Indus., Inc. v. Sum Holding L.P., 949 F.2d 42 , 48 (2d Cir.1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 960 , 112 S.Ct. 1561 , 118 L.Ed.2d 208 (1992) (Court may consider documents neither incorporated by reference nor attached to the complaint where the plaintiff "had ... [the documents] either in its possession or had knowledge of ... [them] and upon which [documents] they relied in bringing suit.”) 2 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Morales v. New Valley Corp.
See Cortec Industries, Inc. v. Sum Holding, L.P., 949 F.2d 42, 47 (2d Cir.1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 960 , 112 S.Ct. 1561 , 118 L.Ed.2d 208 (1992); Kramer v. Time Warner, Inc., 937 F.2d 767, 773 (2d Cir.1991).
discussed
Cited "see"
Shaw v. Digital Equipment Corp.
See Watterson v. Page, 987 F.2d 1, 3-4 (1st Cir.1993) (explaining that the main problem of looking to documents outside the complaint — lack of notice to plaintiff — is dissipated “[wjhere plaintiff has actual notice ... and has relied upon these documents in framing the complaint” (quoting Cortec Indus., Inc. v. Sum Holding L.P., 949 F.2d 42 , 48 (2d Cir.1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 960 , 112 S.Ct. 1561 , 118 L.Ed.2d 208 (1992)); see also San Leandro, 75 F.3d at 808-09 ; Romani, 929 F.2d at 879 n. 3.
discussed
Cited "see"
Microtel Franchise & Development Corp. v. Country Inn Hotel
(2×)
See Fed.R.Civ.P. 10(c) and Cortec Industries, Inc. v. Sum Holding L.P., 949 F.2d 42, 47 (2d Cir.1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 960 , 112 S.Ct. 1561 , 118 L.Ed.2d 208 (1992).
discussed
Cited "see"
San Leandro Emergency Medical Group Profit Sharing Plan v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc.
Meyer Pincus and Associates v. Oppenheimer & Co., 936 F.2d 759 , 762 (2d Cir.1991); see Cortec Industries, Inc. v. Sum Holding L.P., 949 F.2d 42, 48 (2d Cir.1991) (permitting consideration of stock purchase agreement, warrant, and offering memorandum because plaintiffs had “undisputed no tice” of their contents and they were “integral” to plaintiffs’ claim), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 960 , 112 S.Ct. 1561 , 118 L.Ed.2d 208 (1992); see also Kramer v. Time Warner Inc., 937 F.2d 767, 773-74 (2d Cir.1991) (permitting consideration of full text of documents filed with Securities and Exchange …
discussed
Cited "see"
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Meyer Pincus and Associates v. Oppenheimer & Co., 936 F.2d 759 , 762 (2d Cir.1991); see Cortec Industries, Inc. v. Sum Holding L.P., 949 F.2d 42, 48 (2d Cir.1991) (permitting consideration of stock purchase agreement, warrant, and offering memorandum because plaintiffs had "undisputed notice" of their contents and they were "integral" to plaintiffs' claim), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 960 , 112 S.Ct. 1561 , 118 L.Ed.2d 208 (1992); see also Kramer v. Time Warner Inc., 937 F.2d 767, 773-74 (2d Cir.1991) (permitting consideration of full text of documents filed with Securities and Exchange Commission …
discussed
Cited "see"
Mediators, Inc. v. Manney (In Re the Mediators, Inc.)
See Cortec Industries, Inc. v. Sum Holding, L.P., 949 F.2d 42, 47 (2d Cir.1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 960 , 112 S.Ct. 1561 , 118 L.Ed.2d 208 (1992); Kramer v. Time Warner, Inc., 937 F.2d 767, 773 (2d Cir.1991).
cited
Cited "see"
Davis v. Davis (In Re Davis)
See In re Moody, 77 B.R. 566, 578 (S.D.Tex.1987), aff’d, 862 F.2d 1194 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 960 , 112 S.Ct. 1562 , 118 L.Ed.2d 209 (1992).
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Mobile Telecommunication Technologies Corp.
See Cortec Indus., Inc. v. Sum Holding L.P., 949 F.2d 42 , 47 (2d Cir.1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 960 , 112 S.Ct. 1561 , 118 L.Ed.2d 208 (1992) ("[W]hen a plaintiff chooses not to attach to the complaint or incorporate by reference a prospectus upon which it solely relies and which is integral to the complaint, the defendant may produce the prospectus when attacking the complaint for its failure to state a claim, *838 because plaintiff should not so easily be allowed to escape the consequences of its own failure.”). 7 .
discussed
Cited "see"
O'BRIEN v. Alexander
See Cortec Industries, Inc. v. Sum Holding L.P., 949 F.2d 42, 47 (2d Cir.1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 960 , 112 S.Ct. 1561 , 118 L.Ed.2d 208 (1992); Goldman v. Belden, 754 F.2d 1059, 1065-66 (2d Cir.1985). 6 .
discussed
Cited "see"
131 Main Street Associates v. Manko
See Cortec Indus., Inc. v. Sum Holding L.P., 949 F.2d 42 , 48 (2d Cir.1991) ("Where plaintiff has actual notice of all the information in the movant’s papers and has relied upon these documents in framing the complaint[,] the necessity of translating a Rule 12(b)(6) motion into one under Rule 56 is largely dissipated.”), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 960 , 112 S.Ct. 1561 , 118 L.Ed.2d 208 (1992). 24 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Stamatio v. Hurco Companies, Inc.
See Cortec Indus., Inc. v. Sum Holding L.P., 949 F.2d 42 , 48 (2d Cir.1991), ce rt. denied, 503 U.S. 960 , 112 S.Ct. 1561 , 118 L.Ed.2d 208 (1992) (finding that leave may be denied where amendment would be futile); Acito, 47 F.3d at 55 (same).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Highland Capital Management, L.P. v. UBS Securities, LLC (In re Lyondell Chemical Co.)
See also Cortec Indus., Inc. v. Sum Holding L.P., 949 F.2d 42 , 47-48 (2d Cir.1991), ce rt. denied, 503 U.S. 960 , 112 S.Ct. 1561 , 118 L.Ed.2d 208 , (1992).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Florio v. Canty
See also, e.g., Yak v. Bank Brussels Lambert, 252 F.3d 127, 130 (2d Cir.2001) (citing Cortec Indus., Inc. v. Sum Holding L.P., 949 F.2d 42 , 47 (2d Cir.1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 960 , 112 S.Ct. 1561 , 118 L.Ed.2d 208 (1992)); Paulemon v. Tobin, 30 F.3d 307, 308-09 (2d Cir.1994); Brass v. Am.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Heusser v. Hale
See also Roth v. Jennings, 489 F.3d 499, 509 (2d Cir.2007) (“In addition, even if not attached or incorporated by reference, a document upon which the complaint solely relies and which is integral to the complaint may be considered by the court in ruling on such a motion.”). (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Cortee Industries, Inc. v. Sum Holding L.P., 949 F.2d 42, 47 (2d Cir.1991), ce rt. denied, 503 U.S. 960 , 112 S.Ct. 1561 , 118 L.Ed.2d 208 (1992)). 14 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
CITIZENS AGAINST CASINO GAMBLING v. Hogen
Brass v. American Film Technologies, Inc., 987 F.2d 142, 150 (2d Cir.1993); see also, Cortec Ind., Inc. v. Sum Holding L.P., 949 F.2d 42 , 47-48 (2d Cir.1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 960 , 112 S.Ct. 1561 , 118 L.Ed.2d 208 (1992) (documents must be integral to the complaint). 2.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Geldzahler v. New York Medical College
See also, e.g., Yak v. Bank Brussels Lambert, 252 F.3d 127, 130 (2d Cir.2001) (citing Cortec Indus., Inc. v. Sum Holding L.P., 949 F.2d 42 , 47 (2d Cir.1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 960 , 112 S.Ct. 1561 , 118 L.Ed.2d 208 (1992)); Paulemon v. Tobin, 30 F.3d 307, 308-09 (2d Cir.1994); Brass v. Am.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Gordon et ux.
v.
Board of Zoning Appeals, Carroll County, Maryland
v.
Board of Zoning Appeals, Carroll County, Maryland
No. 91-1276.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 30, 1992.
Published
Citer courts: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial… (1)
C. A. 4th Cir. Certio-rari denied.