Legal Opinion
Heine v. Colton, Hartnick, Yamin & Sheresky
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided March 9, 1992No. 91 Civ. 2904 (PKL)PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
LEISURE, District Judge.
In this legal malpractice action, with jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship and the presence of a federal question, defendants, Colton, Hartnick, Yamin & Sheresky (“Colton Hartnick”) and Newman, Tannenbaum, Helpern, Syracuse & Hirschtritt (“Newman Tannenbaum”), now move the Court, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) and 12(c), to dismiss the claims against them raised by plaintiffs, Chrisal Investments Ltd. (“Chrisal”) and Georg H.G. Heine (collectively “Heine”). For the following reasons, the motions are granted in part, denied in part.
BACKGROU…
2Cases cited67 opinions
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Scheuer v. RhodesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Papasan v. AllainSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Securities and Exchange Commission v. W. J. Howey Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1946
- United Housing Foundation, Inc. v. FormanSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
62 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Kubin v. MillerDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1992
- Amusement Industry, Inc. v. SternDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2010
- In re Suntech Power Holdings Co.United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · 2014
- In Re J.P. Jeanneret Associates, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 2011
- State v. ArgoCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1996
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.