Brahe-Pedersen v. Boheng Wen

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a court may reject equitable tolling as a matter of law only where it is “evident from the face of the complaint” that the plaintiff will be unable to make the required factual showing
• stating that a court need not give “credence to [a] plaintiff’s conclusory allegations”
• under choice-of-law principles, where “ ‘injury is purely economic, the place of injury usually is where the plaintiff resides and sustains the economic impact of the loss.’ [Citation.]”
• “Because th[e] claim was first raised in plaintiffs’ reply brief we need not consider it.”
• “Because th[e] claim was first 22 raised in plaintiffs’ reply brief we need not consider it.”
• ʺA stateʹs rules providing for the start and length of the statute of limitations is substantive law.ʺ

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).