Search Results

Haber The internal affairs doctrine is a “conflict of laws principle which recognizes that only one State by the substantive law of the state or country of incorporation.”[2] However, the “internal affairs doctrine , although potent, has very specific applications.”[3] In particular, the doctrine only “governs the Note: this Blog previously examined the internal affairs doctrine here.] “does not override the internal affairs doctrine on the issue of standing to bring a derivative claim

, Mike expresses little sympathy, and instead gives Greg a lesson on salesmen and the caveat emptor doctrine The common law doctrine of caveat emptor is a well-accepted rule of law in New York. Under the doctrine, the courts will not impose liability on a seller of property for failing to disclose They claimed, inter alia, that under the doctrine of caveat emptor plaintiffs’ fraudulent concealment Note: this Blog examined the caveat emptor doctrine and fraudulent concealment, here.]

Haber On numerous occasions, this Blog has examined the attorney-client privilege, the common interest doctrine , and the attorney work product doctrine. Emery , 211 Minn. 547, 2 N.W.2d 413 (1942), the court extended the doctrine to civil litigation. In declining to extend the doctrine, the Court noted that limiting the doctrine “to situations where The Attorney Work Product Doctrine The attorney work product doctrine protects those materials prepared

contract, “a corporation may be deemed to exist and possess the capacity to contract pursuant to the doctrine The doctrine of corporation (or incorporation) by estoppel “is based on the principle that "one who has Boslow , involved a limited partnership, and not a corporation, but nonetheless the Court applied the doctrine Comega Holding Corp . , 2 a case decided under the doctrine of corporation by estoppel. Relying on the corporation by estoppel doctrine, the Second Department modified the motion court’s order

What is The Relation-Back Doctrine? Under the relation-back doctrine, new parties may be joined as defendants in a previously commenced action , after the statute of limitations has expired on the claims against them.[1] The doctrine is codified insufficient to find a unity of interest for purposes of the doctrine. On appeal, the First Department affirmed on the basis of the relation-back doctrine.

.[4] The statutory basis for the relation-back doctrine is found in CPLR 203(c) and (f).[5] CPLR 203 Built upon those provisions, the relation-back doctrine permits, under certain defined circumstances, The doctrine also permits the addition of untimely claims against an original defendant under some of The leading case on the relation-back doctrine is Buran v. The vehicle spun and hit a parked vehicle.

’s article, we examine the interplay between releases, anti-reliance clauses, and the special facts doctrine The decision also underscores the narrow scope of the special facts doctrine in circumstances where a The motion court determined that, under the special facts doctrine, plaintiff alleged that defendants Finally, the Court rejected the application of the special facts doctrine. Because plaintiff failed to take those steps, the Court held that the doctrine did not apply.

The Court also found that Plaintiff failed to state a claim for fraud under the third-party reliance doctrine .[4] Under this doctrine, a plaintiff states a claim for fraud where he/she makes a misstatement of material of caveat emptor.”[9] The Court’s decision addressed, without using the term of art, the doctrine of Under the doctrine, the buyer of real property is required to inspect the property and satisfy himself Chapman reinforces the application of the caveat emptor doctrine in New York real estate transactions

Freiberger Today’s BLOG deals with the “Relation Back Doctrine” (the “Doctrine”)[1], which, inter alia The Doctrine was codified by the CPLR. See, e.g., CPLR 203(b), (c), (e) and (f). As explained by the Court of Appeals, the “doctrine enables a plaintiff to correct a pleading error by Under the Doctrine, claims against a later added party would relate back to the commencement date of “Relation Back Doctrine.”

addressing the statute of limitations for a breach of fiduciary duty claim and the continuous wrong doctrine disputes about ongoing representation and adverse acts precluded dismissal, as the continuous wrong doctrine Defendants argued that the doctrine was inapplicable because the three-year statute of limitations had The motion court found that there were issues of fact as to the application of the continuing wrong doctrine Under the doctrine, the statute of limitations is tolled “where there is a series of independent, distinct

Haber The common law doctrine of caveat emptor is a well-accepted rule of law in New York. Under the doctrine, the courts will not impose liability on a seller of property for failing to disclose seller’s agents thwarted the plaintiff’s efforts to fulfill his [or her] responsibilities fixed by the doctrine available information,” courts have not hesitated to dismiss a fraud claim under the caveat emptor doctrine Note: This Blog examined the caveat emptor doctrine here and here and the impact of publicly available

(Citation and internal quotation marks omitted.) (Citation and internal quotation marks omitted.) one imposed by law where there has been no agreement or expression of assent, by word or act, on the part (Citation and internal quotation marks omitted.)