Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 New York opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2011 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Cooney v. Osgood Machinery, Inc.green2 sentences2011The first Neumeier principle pertains where the parties share a common domicile, and provides that the law of the parties’ domicile controls in that instance (see Cooney, 81 NY2d at 73 ; Neumeier, 31 NY2d at 128 ). 2010The first Neumeier rule provides that, if the parties to the lawsuit share a common domicile, as do plaintiffs and the bus defendants, the law of their domicile applies (see Cooney, 81 NY2d at 74 ; Schultz v Boy Scouts of Am., 65 NY2d 189 , 199-200 [1985]). | 3 | 5 |
Neumeier v. Kuehnergreen2 sentences2011Under the first Neumeier rule, when the driver and passenger are domiciled in the same state, and the vehicle is registered there, the law of their shared jurisdiction controls ( 31 NY2d at 128 ). 2011The first Neumeier principle pertains where the parties share a common domicile, and provides that the law of the parties’ domicile controls in that instance (see Cooney, 81 NY2d at 73 ; Neumeier, 31 NY2d at 128 ). | 1 | 5 |
Dorsey v. Yantambwegreen2 sentences2010With respect to plaintiffs and the bus defendants, we conclude that the first Neumeier rule shall apply (see Schultz, 65 NY2d at 201; Dorsey, 276 AD2d at 111 ). 2001(See, Dorsey v Yantambwe, 276 AD2d 108 ; Weisberg v Layne-New York Co., 132 AD2d 550, 551-552 .) Thus, Avis argues that this is a common domicile case, invoking the first Neumeier rule, rather than a split domicile situation and that since the parties are all New York domiciliarios, New York law should be applied. | 1 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Padula v. Lilarn Properties Corp.
green
2 sentences2001Corp., supra, 84 NY2d at 522 ; see, Cooney v Osgood Mach., supra, 81 NY2d at 73.) The parties are domiciled in New York. 3 While Avis is a Delaware corporation, it maintains its principal place of business in New York and is therefore considered a New York domiciliary for choice of law purposes. 2001Corp., 84 NY2d 519 .) Under the first Neumeier rule, “[w]here the conflicting rules at issue are loss allocating and the parties to the lawsuit share a common domicile, the loss allocation rule of the common domicile will apply.” (Padula v Lilarn Props. | 2 | 2000–2001 |
Weisberg v. Layne-New York Co.
green
1 sentence2001(See, Dorsey v Yantambwe, 276 AD2d 108 ; Weisberg v Layne-New York Co., 132 AD2d 550, 551-552 .) Thus, Avis argues that this is a common domicile case, invoking the first Neumeier rule, rather than a split domicile situation and that since the parties are all New York domiciliarios, New York law should be applied. | 1 | 2001–2001 |