Malatesta v. Mitsubishi Aircraft International, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that the doctrine of laches is “an affirmative defense” and, therefore, holding that the doctrine was unavailable to an intervener-insurance company since it was not a defendant
• court in its discretion may order that intervenor be barred from raising issues that are new or that conflict with previous court rulings in case
• before applying choice-of-law analysis, court must determine whether there is a conflict in the laws of the two states; such a conflict exists if the difference in laws would result in a difference in outcome
• before applying choice-of-law analysis, court must determine whether there is a conflict in the laws of the two states; such a conflict exists if the difference in laws would result in a difference in outcome

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).