John Chaffe & Sons v. Heyner

How courts have described this case

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

• dismissing defamation claim in part because it was clear that the basis for the speaker's opinion was an article to which the speaker provided a link
• dismissing breach of contract counterclaims requiring veil piercing because the counterclaimants failed to allege “lack of corporate formalities, comingling of funds, or self- dealing” (citation, alteration, and quotation marks omitted)
• declining to consider emails that were neither explicitly nor implicitly referenced in defendant’s counterclaims
• dismissing a defamation claim as conclusory when it was “devoid of underlying facts”
• dismissing defamation claim based on musical artist's statement that her \fans deserve better than how some of these promoters treated them\ in part because the statement was not capable of being proven true or false
• “New York law permits a plaintiff to ‘pierce the corporate veil’ and sue a non-signatory for breach of contract when the non-party is an alter ego of one or more signatories.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).