Arch Insurance v. Precision Stone, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that parties’ consent is “sufficient to establish the applicable choice of law” (citation omitted)
• holding that where “[t]he parties’ briefs assume that New York substantive law governs the issues,” “such implied consent is . . . sufficient to establish the applicable choice of law”
• finding that the state’s substantive law assumed in the parties’ briefs is “implied consent” and “sufficient to establish the applicable choice of law”
• concluding in a diversity case that the parties’ “implied consent” to a state’s law in their briefing was “of course [] sufficient to establish the applicable choice of law”
• applying New York law where the parties impliedly consented in their briefing to the application of this state’s law
• applying New York law where the parties’ memoranda of law assume that New York law governed the issues

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).