Legal Opinion

Heisler v. Toyota Motor Credit Corp.

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided May 10, 1995No. 93 Civ. 1770 (KMW)PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION AND ORDER

KIMBA M. WOOD, District Judge.

Pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, defendant Toyota Motor Credit Corporation moves for summary judgment on the ground that choice of law principles compel the application of New Jersey law in this diversity action, and that, under New Jersey law, defendant is not liable to plaintiffs Betty Ann Heisler and John M. Heisler (together the “Heislers”). Plaintiffs argue that New York law of vicarious liability applies, both because New York’s choice of law rules favor the application of New York law in this case, and because…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
  2. Babcock v. JacksonNew York Court of Appeals · 1963
  3. Allstate Insurance v. HagueSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  4. Loucks v. . Standard Oil Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1918
  5. Neumeier v. KuehnerNew York Court of Appeals · 1972

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Reed Construction Data Inc. v. McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 2014
  2. King v. Car Rentals, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2006
  3. Aboud v. Budget Rent a Car Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1998
  4. Tkaczevski v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1998
  5. McCann v. SomozaDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1996

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API