About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


Case Citations [1] (Spring 2025)

handle is hein.ali/resctlw0166 and id is 1 raw text is: THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE Spring 2025 Citations CONFLICT OF LAWS 2D Generally C.A.1, 2024. Cit. generally in sup. New York resident and company that he co-founded sued Maine news outlet and its reporter for publishing an article that allegedly contained defamatory statements about resident. After the district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss under New York's anti- SLAPP statute, this court affirmed on First Amendment grounds. On remand, the district court denied defendants' request for attorneys' fees under the New York statute, finding that Maine law governed the issue of attorney's fees under the Restatement Second of Conflict of Laws. This court certified to the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine the question of which state's law applied, explaining that there was no clear controlling precedent and that the choice-of-law analysis was determinative of the attorneys' fees issue. Cheng v. Neumann, 106 F.4th 19, 24. C.A.2, 2024. Adopted in case cit. in sup. German investor in residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) certificates sued trustee of the trusts that issued the certificates, after the subprime mortgage market collapsed and the value of the certificates plummeted. The district court granted in part trustee's motion for summary judgment, finding that investor lacked standing under New York with respect to certain certificates it had previously sold to third parties. This court affirmed in part, holding that, under Ohio's choice-of-law rules and the Restatement Second of Conflict of Laws, New York law governed investor's right to bring claims based on the sold certificates, because New York had the most significant relationship to those claims. The court pointed out that New York was where the certificates were sold, where the contracts and offering documents specified that the certificates were to be held, and where most of the third-party purchasers had their principal places of business. Commerzbank AG v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 100 F.4th 362, 384. D.Ariz.2024. Cit. generally in case cit. in sup. Arizona dentist filed a claim for breach of contract against dental partnership organization, alleging that it failed to compensate him pursuant to the parties' introducer agreement, which organization had terminated on the grounds that dentist was not a registered broker in Arizona. This court granted organization's motion forjudgment on the pleadings, holding that the agreement's choice-of-law provision selecting Florida law was invalid and that Arizona law applied to dentist's claims under Arizona choice-of-law rules, which had adopted the Restatement Second of Conflict of Laws. Kode v. United Dental Corporation, 710 F.Supp.3d 682, 686. COPYRIGHT 02025 By THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.