Skip to main content
S.D. New York· 12/2/2004

Pfizer, Inc. v. Stryker Corp.

Citations

  • 348 F. Supp. 2d 131
  • 2004 WL 2750090

How courts have described this case

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

  • rejecting the same argument raised by Plaintiff because “notwithstanding” clause concerning indemnification was “not inconsistent with the allocation of responsibility” elsewhere in the agreement
  • applying New York law to this issue and stating its requirement that “a party must establish that the amount claimed is fixed”
  • portraying the indemnitee’s right to notice, right to conduct and control over claims, and right to employ counsel as “rights and obligations for indemnification for third party claims”
  • declining to interpret a purchase agreement to make the seller liable for losses arising from products sold after the closing date because such an approach “would be at odds with th[e] [purchase agreement’s] careful allocation of liability” based on the closing date
  • “To assert a claim under a loss or liability indemnification agreement, a party must establish that the amount claimed is fixed.”
  • “Scienter may be proved through circumstantial evidence by establishing facts showing a motive for committing fraud and a clear opportunity to do so.” (emphasis omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Kaplan

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

16 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

57 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Pfizer, Inc. v. Stryker Corp.

2 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.