De Luna v. Hidalgo County

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that, after Starr, “New York may have barred all ‘holder’ claims”
• finding that § 10(b) claim did not toll § 18 claim
• declining to recognize cross-jurisdictional tolling given that New York courts have not yet addressed the issue
• finding allegations that plaintiff, in reliance on alleged misrepresentations in Bear Stearns' 10-K, purchased securities during a \year-long period from March 2007 through March 2008\ inadequate to state a claim under Rule 9(b
• “To plead common law fraud, a plaintiff must allege with particularity that it actually relied upon the supposed misstatements.”
• \Cross-jurisdictional tolling is at issue whenever a court considers the timeliness of state law claims originally filed outside that state's courts.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).