Davidson v. Nantz

How courts have described this case

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

• laying out New York’s standard for distinguishing between those bonuses that qualify as wages entitled to statutory protection and those that do not
• dismissing plaintiff’s claims for implied contract, quantum meruit, and promissory estoppel in an employment dispute where there was an employment contract between the parties that the action arose out of
• “where, as here, the contract law of New York and Delaware is not in conflict, the court can apply New York law even though there is a provision selecting Delaware’s laws in the contract.” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• “[The plaintiff] may not use an opposition to a motion to dismiss to amend his pleadings.” (citing Wright v. Ernst & Young LLP, 152 F.3d 169, 178 (2d Cir. 1998)), aff’d, 646 F. App’x 2 (2d Cir. 2016) (summary order)
• describing offer, acceptance and consideration as elements of contract formation

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).