Herbstein v. Bruetman

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that claim of misappropriation was distinguishable from claim of fraudulent inducement, even though underlying facts were same
• holding that the action would not be stayed based on comity because of pending Argentine litigation
• finding that existence of American defendants, who committed acts of fraud in this country, weighed heavily in favor of maintaining action in United States
• finding Argentine case was at preliminary stage where formal investigation into possible misappropriation had just begun and there had not yet been any determination of actual wrongdoing
• refusing to grant stay where U.S. and foreign proceeding were based on “two independent causes of action”
• “[C]omity requires that the parties and issues in both litigations are the same or sufficiently similar, such that the doctrine of res judicata can be asserted.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

20 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Caspian Investments, Ltd. v. Vicom Holdings, Ltd.
  S.D. New York· 1991-07-31· cited 42×
• Madanes v. Madanes
  S.D. New York· 1997-10-08· cited 42×
• Anglo American Insurance Group, P.L.C. v. CalFed Inc.
  S.D. New York· 1996-09-06· cited 42×
• Modern Computer Corp. v. Ma
  E.D. New York· 1994-09-23· cited 27×
• Leutwyler v. Office of Her Majesty Queen Rania Al-Abdullah
  S.D. New York· 2001-08-08· cited 21×
• Scheiner v. Wallace
  S.D. New York· 1993-09-13· cited 18×
• Exxon Research and Engineering Co. v. Industrial Risk Insurers
  New Jersey Superior Court App Division· 2001-06-27· cited 18×
• Calzaturificio Rangoni S.P.A. v. United States Shoe Corp.
  S.D. New York· 1994-11-16· cited 18×
• Lg Display Co., Ltd v. Obayashi Seikou Co., Ltd.
  District of Columbia· 2013-01-28· cited 17×
• Houbigant, Inc. v. Development Specialists, Inc.
  S.D. New York· 2002-09-30· cited 15×
• Pablo Star Ltd. v. Welsh Gov't
  S.D. Illinois· 2019-03-29· cited 11×
• Consolidated Edison Co. of New York v. United States
  S.D. New York· 1998-11-25· cited 7×
• In Re the Complaint of American President Lines, Ltd.
  S.D. New York· 1995-06-27· cited 6×
• Alnwick v. European Micro Holdings, Inc.
  Second Circuit· 2002-03-15· cited 6×
• Insurance Corp. v. Latino Americana de Reaseguros, S.A.
  S.D. New York· 1994-10-07· cited 4×
• Nycal Corp. v. INOCO PLC
  S.D. New York· 1997-06-30· cited 3×
• Cambridge Biotech Corp. v. Deliotte & Touche
  Massachusetts Superior Court· 1997-01-28· cited 1×
• Herbstein v. Bruetman
  S.D. New York· 1992-06-18· cited 1×
• Ins. Corp. of Hannover v. LATINO AMERICANA
  S.D. New York· 1994-10-07
• John S. Stritzinger v. Christiana Trust, a Division of Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB
  Tex. App. Ct., 3rd Dist. (Austin)· 2016-11-15