AI-measured from their own opinions — each lever cites its cases
PurposivismTextualism
Opinions apply statutory text directly and strictly, as in denying coverage under explicit policy exclusions tied to an IRS agreement and requiring precise statutory prerequisites for derivative citizenship under the INA. Gluck v. Executive Risk Indemnit… ↗ Henry v. Quarantillo ↗
Deference to government powerSkepticism of government power
This case involved a New York insurance company, Merchants, seeking contribution and indemnity from MMCA, the lessor of a vehicle involved in a 1997 car accident, after Merchants paid the full amount of a $700,000 jury verdict in a related personal injury suit even though its insureds were only 30% at fault. The dispute centered on whether Merchants could recover from MMCA as a vehicle owner under New York law, given that MMCA's insurer, Reliance, had been declared insolvent before the verdict. The court held that Merchants could not maintain the suit against MMCA because its insurer was insolvent, denying Merchants' motion for summary judgment and granting MMCA's. The core reasoning was that New York law channels claims involving insolvent insurers through liquidation proceedings and guaranty funds rather than allowing direct actions against the insured, to avoid undermining the statutory framework for handling insurer insolvencies.
The case involves plaintiff Lawrence Hardy suing New York City and State defendants after his October 2007 arrest for an alleged parole violation and subsequent incarceration until March 2008, during which his pre-existing ear condition worsened due to allegedly inadequate medical care. Hardy asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, false arrest, malicious prosecution, assault and battery, and related state-law torts, along with conspiracy and municipal liability allegations. All defendants moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6), and for summary judgment on certain issues. The court granted the motions in part and denied them in part, dismissing claims such as municipal liability and false arrest based on qualified immunity given the unsettled law in 2007 regarding administratively imposed post-release supervision, while allowing certain deliberate indifference claims to proceed after treating some motions as for summary judgment and reviewing medical records.
The case concerned a contract dispute between DNJ Logistic Group, a shipping subcontractor, and DHL Express along with its employee Catapano, arising from alleged misrepresentations about business volumes under a 2007 subcontract that led DNJ to cancel another contract and relocate operations. After removal to federal court on diversity grounds and dismissal of an added federal RICO claim, the sole remaining question was whether the case should be remanded due to Catapano's New York residency destroying complete diversity. The court remanded the action to New York Supreme Court, holding that Catapano had not been fraudulently joined because the original complaint set forth a colorable fraud or fraudulent inducement claim against him under New York law.
This case involves a dispute between two art dealers over ownership of a Salvador Dali painting, with plaintiff Philip Coffaro seeking a declaratory judgment that he is the rightful owner after purchasing it and consigning it for auction, while defendant David Crespo asserted a competing claim based on an alleged prior transfer. Plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment on the declaratory judgment claim. The court granted the motion, holding that defendant lacked standing to assert any interest in the painting. The core reasoning was that defendant had not listed the painting or any related claims as assets in his prior bankruptcy proceeding, leaving any such interest as property of the bankruptcy estate rather than the debtor.
In this defamation case, plaintiff Jose Ramiro Garza Cantu, a Mexican businessman in the petroleum industry, sued defendant Billy R. Flanigan for creating and sharing a document resembling a legal complaint with a reporter from a widely circulated Mexican magazine; the document falsely accused Cantu of racketeering, money laundering, bribery, drug cartel involvement, and other crimes as part of Flanigan's effort to pressure Cantu into helping collect on an unrelated default judgment. A jury found Flanigan liable and awarded Cantu $38 million in economic damages and $150 million in non-economic damages. On remand from the Second Circuit, which had upheld the economic damages but directed review of whether the non-economic award was excessive, the district court upheld the full $150 million non-economic award. The court reasoned that the award did not deviate materially from reasonable compensation under N.Y. CPLR § 5501(c), given the extortionate context, the inflammatory nature of the accusations presented in a credible medium, and their worldwide distribution.
This case involves a construction contract dispute between TADCO Construction Corporation and the Dormitory Authority of the State of New York (DASNY) over delays and issues in building a dormitory facility on Staten Island, along with claims by TADCO's superintendent Thomas DeMartino regarding two arrests at the job site. TADCO alleges multiple breach of contract claims and a due process violation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 stemming from contract termination and payment issues, while DeMartino asserts federal and state claims of false arrest, malicious prosecution, and abuse of process against DASNY employees. The defendants moved to dismiss all federal claims as well as DeMartino's state law claims and to decline supplemental jurisdiction over TADCO's remaining state claims. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part after analyzing the sufficiency of the pleadings, including whether arrests initiated proceedings and whether probable cause existed based on the contract terms.
business & regulatorycivil rightstorts & liabilityprocedure