Farkas v. Farkas

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that intentional concealment of a conversion “can be a sufficient basis for estoppel” under New York law

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

4 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Shah v. Wilco Systems, Inc.
  S.D. New York· 2000-11-20· cited 16×
• Farkas v. Farkas
  New York Court of Appeals· 2008-10-23· cited 11×
• THUNDER ISLAND AMUSEMENTS, INC. v. Ewald
  N.D. New York· 2009-06-29· cited 1×
• Ferrostaal, Inc. v. M/V Tupungato
  Second Circuit· 2007-04-03· cited 1×

Cites

5 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• General Stencils, Inc. v. Chiappa
  New York Court of Appeals· 1966-07-07· cited 150×
• Logan v. Bennington College Corp.
  Second Circuit· 1995-12-14· cited 52×
• Smith v. Cutson
  Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York· 1992-12-30· cited 12×
• In re the Estate of Spewack
  Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York· 1994-04-19· cited 7×
• Farkas ex rel. Estate of Farkas v. Farkas
  Second Circuit· 1999-02-23· cited 1×