Legal Opinion
Diaz v. Paterson
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided October 17, 2008No. Docket 05-2685-cv, 06-3942-cv(L), 06-3992-cv(con)PublishedCited by 45 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge:
These putative class actions challenge the constitutionality of the New York law, codified at N.Y. Civil Practice Law & Rules 6501-6516 (“Article 65”), that allows a plaintiff who brings a lawsuit claiming interest in real property to file a lis pen-dens with respect to the property. The lis pendens (also called a “notice of pen-dency”) alerts future buyers or interest holders of a prior claim. Plaintiffs argue, under Connecticut v. Doehr, 501 U.S. 1, 111 S.Ct. 2105, 115 L.Ed.2d 1 (1991), that because the law does not give the property owner prior notice or…
2Cases cited44 opinions
- Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. FeldmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1924
- United States v. SalernoSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 2005
39 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by45 opinions
- In Re DDAVP Direct Purchaser Antitrust LitigationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2009
- United States v. DecastroCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2012
- Salmon v. BlesserCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2015
- Copeland v. VanceCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2018
- Congregation Rabbinical College of Tartikov, Inc. v. Village of PomonaDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2013
40 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.