Cases pin-citing Volvo Construction Equipment North America, Inc. v. Clm Equipment Company, Inc. · Go Syfert
Search » Famous passages » Cases pin-citing Volvo Construction Equipment North America, Inc. v. Clm Equipment Company, Inc.

Cases pin-citing Volvo Construction Equipment North America, Inc. v. Clm Equipment Company, Inc.

Volvo Construction Equipment North America, Inc. v. Clm Equipment Company, Inc.  ·  2004  ·  22 pinpoint citations from 22 cases, 12 distinct passages.

Anderson v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.  ·  2024-08-30  ·  W.D. North Carolina  ·  pin 386 F.3d at 581
“[T]he first suit should have priority, absent the showing of a balance of convenience in favor of the second action.”
Elegant Massage, LLC v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company  ·  2024-03-08  ·  Fourth Circuit  ·  pin 386 F.3d at 581
“A federal court exercising diversity jurisdiction is obliged to apply the substantive law of the state in which it sits, including the state’s choice-of-law rules.”
Yagoub Mohamed v. Bank of America, N.A.  ·  2024-02-16  ·  Fourth Circuit  ·  pin 386 F.3d at 581
“Absent exceptional circumstances, . . . we do not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal.”
Aseltine v. Bank of America, N.A.  ·  2023-09-27  ·  W.D. North Carolina  ·  pin 386 F.3d at 581
“[C]ontracting parties in North Carolina are entitled to agree that a particular jurisdiction's substantive law will govern their contract, and such a provision will generally be given effect.”
Movement Mortgage LLC v. Intercontinental Capital Group, Inc.  ·  2023-03-09  ·  W.D. North Carolina  ·  pin 386 F.3d at 581
“A federal court exercising diversity jurisdiction is obliged to apply the substantive law of the state in which it sits, including the state’s choice-of-law rules.”
Deborah Laufer v. Naranda Hotels, LLC  ·  2023-02-15  ·  Fourth Circuit  ·  pin 386 F.3d at 581
“Absent exceptional circumstances, . . . we do not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal.”
The Insurance Shoppe of North Carolina, Inc. v. West American Insurance Company  ·  2022-03-30  ·  E.D. North Carolina  ·  pin 386 F.3d at 581
“Despite North Carolina’s adherence to the presumptive rule of lex loci contractus, contracting parties in North Carolina are entitled to agree that a particular jurisdiction’s substantive law will govern their contract, and such a provision will generally be given effect.”
Niya Wallace v. Yamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.  ·  2022-01-06  ·  Fourth Circuit  ·  pin 386 F.3d at 581
“Absent exceptional circumstances . . . we do not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal.”
XL Insurance America Inc v. Metanoia  ·  2021-07-15  ·  D. South Carolina  ·  pin 386 F.3d at 581
“A case meets the actual controversy requirement only if it presents a controversy that qualifies as an actual controversy under Article III of the Constitution.”
HONDA JET LIMITED, L.L.C. v. HONDA AIRCRAFT COMPANY, LLC  ·  2021-05-26  ·  M.D. North Carolina  ·  pin 386 F.3d at 581
“North Carolina [courts] . . . typically give effect to contractual choice-of-law provisions.”
Sogefi USA, Inc. v. Interplex Sunbelt, Inc.  ·  2021-05-07  ·  S.D. West Virginia  ·  pin 386 F.3d at 581
“A federal court exercising diversity jurisdiction is obliged to apply the substantive law of the state in which it sits, including the state's choice-of-law rules.”
Universal Insurance Company North America v. Coward  ·  2021-01-28  ·  D. South Carolina  ·  pin 386 F.3d at 581
“A case meets the actual controversy requirement only if it presents a controversy that qualifies as an actual controversy under Article III of the Constitution.”
Dyer v. Air Methods Corporation  ·  2020-12-17  ·  D. South Carolina  ·  pin 386 F.3d at 581
“A case meets the actual controversy requirement only if it presents a controversy that qualifies as an actual controversy under Article III of the Constitution.”
Progressive Northern Insurance Company v. Ladue  ·  2020-12-09  ·  D. South Carolina  ·  pin 386 F.3d at 581
“A case meets the actual controversy requirement only if it presents a controversy that qualifies as an actual controversy under Article III of the Constitution.”
Passport Health, LLC v. Avance Health System, Inc.  ·  2020-08-17  ·  Fourth Circuit  ·  pin 386 F.3d at 581
“Absent exceptional circumstances, . . . we do not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal.”
ABC Phones of North Carolina, Inc. v. Yahyavi  ·  2020-07-22  ·  E.D. North Carolina  ·  pin 386 F.3d at 581
“North Carolina . . . typically[s] gives effect to contractual choice-of-law provisions.”
WHITAKER v. MONROE STAFFING SERVICES, LLC  ·  2020-06-25  ·  M.D. North Carolina  ·  pin 386 F.3d at 581
“A federal court exercising diversity jurisdiction is obliged to apply the substantive law of the state in which it sits, including the state’s choice-of-law rules.”
Denver Global Products, Inc. v. Roger Leon  ·  2020-06-08  ·  Fourth Circuit  ·  pin 386 F.3d at 581
“Absent exceptional circumstances . . . we do not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal[.]”
ALPS Property & Casualty v. Ivan Higgerson, Sr.  ·  2020-03-24  ·  Fourth Circuit  ·  pin 386 F.3d at 581
“Absent exceptional circumstances . . . we do not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal[.]”
THE NORTH CAROLINA EYE BANK, INC. v. HIGH ENERGY OZONE, LLC  ·  2019-12-11  ·  M.D. North Carolina  ·  pin 386 F.3d at 581
“A federal court exercising diversity jurisdiction is obliged to apply the substantive law of the state in which it sits, including the state’s choice-of-law rules.”
American Service Insurance Company v. OnTime Transport LLC  ·  2019-08-22  ·  D. South Carolina  ·  pin 386 F.3d at 581
“A federal court exercising diversity jurisdiction is obliged to apply the substantive law of the state in which it sits.”
Lynch v. Sease  ·  2007-04-27  ·  Sixth Circuit  ·  pin 386 F.3d at 581
“[I]n South Carolina, equitable relief is precluded under a theory of promissory estoppel if the estoppel claim is in direct conflict with a specific contract term.”