Stewart v. Estate of Steiner (2004)
green
· 45 citation events
across 7 courts.
Showing the 11 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 2004 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
200420152026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
yellow
Joseph Golden v. ShootProof Holdings, LP (2023)
But see Kittilson v. Ford, 608 P.2d 264, 265 (Wash. 1980) (“The coordination of the federal courts with federal regulations does not require imitation by this court in construing our act, only that our construction not interfere with the federal scheme.” (citation omitted)). 106 Stewart v. Est. of Steiner, 93 P.3d 919, 925 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). 107 Id. (citing Harsco Corp. v. Segui, 91 F.3d 337 , 343–44 (2d Cir. 1996)).
See, e.g., Hines v. Data Line Sys., Inc., 114 Wash.2d 127 , 787 P.2d 8, 12 (1990) (en banc); Stewart v. Estate of Steiner, 122 Wash.App. 258 , 93 P.3d 919, 922 (2004).
green
Instu Inc v. Mark Kent (2010)
See Kwiatkowski v. Drews, 142 Wash.App. 463 , 176 P.3d 510, 517 (2008); Stewart v. Estate of Steiner, 122 Wash.App. 258 , 93 P.3d 919, 927 (2004); cf. Helenius v. Chelius, 131 Wash.App. 421 , 120 P.3d 954, 964 (2005).
green
Zunum Aero Inc v. The Boeing Company (2022)
(See Resp. at 16 19.) 17 // 18 19 25 Boeing’s first argument in favor of dismissal is that Zunum cannot bring a claim under the WSSA because “Delaware law governs the securities.” (See Mot. at 18 (citing FAC ¶¶ 428, 20 444, 480).) Because, as discussed below, Zunum fails to state a claim under the WSSA for numerous other reasons, the court need not resolve the choice-of-law issue. 21 26 Because these contracts “form[] the basis of [Zunum’s] claim[s]” in Counts I, II, and III…
stating, in the 5 context of “non-reliance” clauses, that “[s]ecurities law does not permit a party 6 to . . . disavow such representations”
green
In Re Metropolitan Securities Litigation (2007)
The second case, Steivart v. Steiner, is likewise distinguishable because the plaintiff investor “expressly warranted ... that he ... did not rely on” the defendant’s representations. 122 Wash.App. 258, 261 , 93 P.3d 919, 920 (2004).
green
Charles Sung v. Mission Vly Renewable Energy (2015)
See Stewart v. Estate of Steiner, 122 Wash.App. 258 , 93 P.3d 919, 922 (2004).
green
John Atchley v. Pepperidge Farm Inc. (2010)
See Stewart v. Estate of Steiner, 122 Wash.App. 258 , 93 P.3d 919, 927 (2004).
green
Swartz v. Kpmg, LLP (2007)
See Stewart v. Estate of Steiner, 93 P.3d 919, 927 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004) (requiring consideration of multiple factors in context of securities fraud suit). [7] Even if there were such a rule, it is not at all clear that the engagement letter “contradicts” any oral misrepresenta- tions alleged by Swartz.
requiring consideration of multiple factors in context of securities fraud suit
green
Theodore C. Swartz v. Kpmg Llp, and Presidio Advisory Services Inc. Deutsche Bank Ag Deutsche Bank Securities… (2007)
See Stewart v. Estate of Steiner, 122 Wash.App. 258 , 93 P.3d 919, 927 (2004) (requiring consideration of multiple factors in context of securities fraud suit).
requiring consideration of multiple factors in context of securities fraud suit
green
Moore v. Thornwater Co. (2005)
See Stewart v. Steiner, 122 Wash.App. 258 , 93 P.3d 919 (2004).
green
JM Vidal, Inc. v. Texdis USA, Inc. (2011)
See Stewart v. Estate of Steiner, 122 Wash.App. 258 , 93 P.3d 919, 928 (2004) (affirming grant of summary judgment in securities fraud action because plaintiff-investor could not have reasonably relied on alleged oral misrepresentations in light of subscription agreement's express disclaimer stating that he had not relied on any such representations). 9 .
affirming grant of summary judgment in securities fraud action because plaintiff-investor could not have reasonably relied on alleged oral misrepresentations in light of subscription agreement's express disclaimer stating that he had not relied on any such representations