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.
4 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 24 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Padula v. Lilarn Properties Corp..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Padula v. Lilarn Properties Corp. Anchor | green | “in the context of tort law, new york utilizes interest analysis to determine which of two competing jurisdictions has the greater interest in having its law applied in the litigation.” | 9 |
| 2 | Neumeier v. Kuehner | green | “will advance the relevant substantive law purposes without impairing the smooth working of the multi-state system or producing great uncertainty for litigants.” | 8 |
| 3 | Padula v. Lilarn Properties Corp. | green | “interest analysis to determine which of two competing jurisdictions has the greater interest in having its law applied in the litigation.” | 5 |
| 4 | Cooney v. Osgood Machinery, Inc. | green | “assuming that the interest of each state in enforcement of its law is roughly equal ... the situs of the tort is appropriate as a 'tie breaker' because that is the only state with which both parties have purposefully associated themselves in a significant way.” | 2 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.