Chanoff v. United States Surgical Corp., 31 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 1994). · Go Syfert
Search
Chanoff v. United States Surgical Corp., 31 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 1994). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
20 citation events (16 in the last 25 years) across 12 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Staiger v. Bentley Mortgage Corp., No. Cv93-0349183 (Sep. 7, 1999) (connsuperct, 1999-09-07)
Treatment trajectory · 1994 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1994 2010 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Staiger v. Bentley Mortgage Corp., No. Cv93-0349183 (Sep. 7, 1999)
Conn. Super. Ct. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See Chanoff v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 857 F. Sup. 1011 , 1022 , aff'd 31 F.3d 66 , cert. denied 513 U.S. 1058 , 115 S.Ct. 667 , 130 L.Ed.2d 601 (D.Conn. 1994); Zuccarelli v. N. American Holding Corp., Superior Court, judicial district of Litchfield, Docket No. 054504 (April 2, 1991, Susco, J. ).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." In Re Enron Corp. Securities, Derivative
S.D. Tex. · 2005 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Chanoff v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 857 F.Supp. 1011, 1022 (D.Conn.1994) (“[T]o recognize plaintiffs’ claim and the potential liability ‘in an indeterminate amount for an indeterminate time to an indeterminate class’ would be contrary to the language and intent of Section 552.”), aff'd, 31 F.3d 66 (2d Cir.1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1058 , 115 S.Ct. 667 , 130 L.Ed.2d 601 (1994); LaSalle Nat’l Bank v. Duff & Phelps Credit Rating Co., 951 F.Supp. 1071, 1093 (S.D.N.Y.1996)(rating agency will not owe duty based on a representation “designed to target ... ‘the public at lar…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Jernberg v. Mann
1st Cir. · 2004 · signal: see also · confidence low
Bank, 311 Mass. 677 , 42 N.E.2d 808 (1942), which relies on Goodwin); see also Chanoff v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 857 F.Supp. 1011, 1020-21 (D.Conn.) (citing, inter alia, Goodwin in support of proposition that “the weight of common law authority has rejected the contention, central to the plaintiffs’ claim, that a corporate officer, merely by virtue of status, occupies a position of trustee toward individual stockholders in the corporation.’’), aff'd, 31 F.3d 66 (2d Cir.1994); Bailey v. Vaughan, 178 W.Va. 371 , 359 S.E.2d 599 , 602 n. 4 (1987) (citing Goodwin with approval). 5 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Green v. Fund Asset Management, L.P.
D.N.J. · 1999 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Chanoff v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 857 F.Supp. 1011, 1015-16 (D.Conn.), aff'd, 31 F.3d 66 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1058 , 115 S.Ct. 667 , 130 L.Ed.2d 601 (1994) (finding in case where state law fraud claims were asserted in conjunction with federal securities claims that plaintiff’s common law claims are not per se preempted but concluding after performing preemption analysis that the state claims are preempted to the extent they conflict with the federal regulatory scheme); McCarthy v. PaineWebber, Inc., 618 F.Supp. 933, 943 (N.D.Ill.1985) ("There is no logical reason not t…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
William Chanoff, David Chanoff, Rachel Chanoff and Harriet Fingerote
v.
United States Surgical Corporation, Leon Hirsch, Turi Josefson, Bruce C. Lustman and Marianne Scipione
2068.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Jul 28, 1994.
31 F.3d 66
Published

31 F.3d 66

William CHANOFF, David Chanoff, Rachel Chanoff and Harriet
Fingerote, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
UNITED STATES SURGICAL CORPORATION, Leon Hirsch, Turi
Josefson, Bruce C. Lustman and Marianne Scipione,
Defendants-Appellees.

No. 2068, Docket 94-7332.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Argued July 21, 1994.
Decided July 28, 1994.

Plaintiffs-appellants appeal from Judge Nevas's ruling granting defendants-appellees' Rule 12(b)(6) motion with respect to plaintiffs' claims of, inter alia, common law fraud and federal securities violations. We affirm.

Barbara Moses, New York City (Gregory A. Markel, Gary E. Weiss, Michael B. Carlinsky, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, New York City, Thomas J. Byrne, James T. Shearin, Pullman & Comley, Bridgeport, CT, of counsel), for appellants.

Dale A. Schreiber, New York City (Charles S. Sims, Lawrence S. Block, Proskauer Rose Goetz & Mendelsohn, of counsel), for appellees.

Prior report: 857 F.Supp. 1011.

Before: WINTER, McLAUGHLIN, and JACOBS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

We affirm for substantially the reasons stated by the district court.