CTS Corp. v. Waldburger

How courts have described this case

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

• “The parties' briefs assume that New York law controls, and such implied consent is sufficient to establish choice of law”
• “We review a district court’s denial of [the nonmovant]’s Rule 56(d) motion for abuse of discretion.”
• “The parties’ briefs assume that New York law controls, and such implied consent . . . is sufficient to establish choice of law.” (citation omitted)
• “Under New York choice-of-law rules, where the parties agree that a certain jurisdiction’s law controls, this is sufficient to establish choice of law.”
• “The parties’ briefs assume that New York law controls, and such implied consent is sufficient to establish choice of law.” (cleaned up)
• “The parties’ briefs assume that New York law controls, and such implied consent is sufficient to establish choice of law” (cleaned up)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).