Lou Dibella and Dibella Entertainment, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross-Appellees v. Bernard Hopkins, Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that, when hearing a New York state- law claim “under our diversity jurisdiction, we are obligated to apply New York's standard of proof”
• holding that a trial record could be reopened to correct misleading statements counsel made during summations
• recognizing that Prozeralik is the controlling standard for the purpose of punitive damages in a defamation case 46 and that \New York Pattern Jury Instruction § 3:30\ is \in accord with that standard\
• noting that certification is proper when “state law is so uncertain that we 13 can make no reasonable prediction” about how the state’s highest court would 14 decide the question
• stating that Rule 28(j) could not be used to submit new evidence to an appeals court
• explaining that certification is inappropriate “where sufficient precedents exist” for us to resolve the appeal

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).