Spaeth v. Paul

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that ap-pealable interlocutory injunctions are “de signed to ... protect ... the substantive relief sought by a complaint”
• holding that appealable interlocutory injunctions are “designed to . . . protect . . . the substantive relief sought by a complaint”
• holding that order that did not resolve all the claims in the action was interlocutory and was not appealable because there was no Rule 54(b) certification
• holding that even “a transfer motivated by actual fraudulent intent may not be voided if a transferee who paid fair consideration did not have actual or constructive knowledge of such intent.”
• concluding that, where a district court “enter[s] judgment without a trial on the basis of the affidavits and appended exhibits,” we review its decision under §5225(b) de novo
• noting . that, “[u]nlike the Bankruptcy Code,” New York’s fraudulent conveyance statute comprises “a set of legal rather than equitable doctrines”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).