Legal Opinion
Schur v. Porter
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided May 30, 1989No. 88 Civ. 3177 (MGC)PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
CEDARBAUM, District Judge.
Defendants Stephen W. Porter, Dunnells, Duvall, Bennett & Porter (“Dunnells”) and Van Ness, Feldman, Sutcliffe & Curtis (“Van Ness”) move to dismiss this diversity action for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue. In addition, defendants move to dismiss the legal malpractice claim on the ground that the claim is barred by the statute of limitations. For the reasons discussed below, defendants’ motion is granted in part and denied in part.
PARTIES
Plaintiff Lawrence H. Schur (“Lawrence”) is a citizen of New York. Plaintiff Paul E. Schur…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- McGee v. International Life InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Harold Noel Arrowsmith, Jr. v. United Press InternationalCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1963
- Cutco Industries, Inc. v. Dennis E. NaughtonCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1986
- Kreutter v. McFadden Oil Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1988
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Bank Brussels Lambert v. Fiddler Gonzalez & RodriguezCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1999
- Liberatore v. CalvinoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2002
- Durkin v. SheaDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1997
- Mirman v. FeinerDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 2012
- Pomerantz v. WolfinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.