green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
7.0 score
“plaintiffs contention that the period of repose begins to run at the time of the last alleged misrepresentation (even when made after the final purchase or sale of the securities) ignores the applicable limitations period, and thus, is devoid of merit”
Treatment trajectory · 2010 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2010
2018
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Wiedis v. Dreambuilder Investments, LLC
plaintiffs contention that the period of repose begins to run at the time of the last alleged misrepresentation (even when made after the final purchase or sale of the securities) ignores the applicable limitations period, and thus, is devoid of merit
cited
Cited "see"
James Holsey v. Danny Thompson, Warden
See Carroll v. Sec’y, DOC, 574 F.3d 1354, 1365 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 130 S.Ct. 500 , 175 L.Ed.2d 355 (2009).
cited
Cited "see"
Porrazzo v. Bumble Bee Foods, LLC
See Arnold v. KPMG LLP, 334 Fed.Appx. 349, 352-53 (2d Cir.2009), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 130 S.Ct. 503 , 175 L.Ed.2d 348 (2009).
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Turner
See Carroll v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., 574 F.3d 1354, 1365 (11th Cir.) ("[I]t is 'beyond debate' that a state court’s failure to conduct an evidentiary hearing on a post-conviction motion does not constitute a cognizable claim for habeas relief.”), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 500 , 175 L.Ed.2d 355 (2009).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Hornung v. Hornung
(3×)
See Glazer v. Dress Barn, Inc. , 274 Conn. 33 , 60, 873 A.2d 929 (2005) ( "[e]quitable estoppel is a doctrine that operates in many contexts to bar a party from asserting a right that it otherwise would have but for its own conduct"); Lanna v. Greene , 175 Conn. 453 , 458, 399 A.2d 837 (1978) (party may waive provisions in contract included solely for his or her benefit); see also Rosado v. Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp. , 292 Conn. 1 , 58, 970 A.2d 656 (waiver may be implied by conduct), cert. denied, 558 U.S. 991 , 130 S.Ct. 500 , 175 L.Ed.2d 348 (2009).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Hornung v. Hornung
(3×)
See Glazer v. Dress Barn, Inc., 274 Conn. 33, 60 , 873 A.2d 929 (2005) (‘‘[e]quitable estoppel is a doctrine that operates in many contexts to bar a party from asserting a right that it otherwise would have but for its own conduct’’); Lanna v. Greene, 175 Conn. 453, 458 , 399 A.2d 837 (1978) (party may waive provisions in contract included solely for his or her benefit); see also Rosado v. Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp., 292 Conn. 1, 58 , 970 A.2d 656 (waiver may be implied by conduct), cert. denied, 558 U.S. 991 , 130 S. Ct. 500 , 175 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Alston v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, FLORIDA
Federal habeas relief is available to remedy defects in a defendant’s conviction and sentence, but “an alleged defect in a collateral proceeding does not state a basis for habeas relief.” Quince v. Crosby, 360 F.3d 1259, 1262 (11th Cir.2004); see also Carroll v. Sec’y, DOC, 574 F.3d 1354, 1365 (11th Cir.2009) (collecting cases), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 500 , 175 L.Ed.2d 355 (2009).
Elliot S. SAFFRAN
v.
NOVASTAR MORTGAGE, INC.
v.
NOVASTAR MORTGAGE, INC.
No. 09-251.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Nov 2, 2009.
Cited by 38 opinions | Published
Citer courts: S.D. New York (1)
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.