Tevdorachvili v. Chase Manhattan Bank

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that because the decedent “had been a Japanese citizen residing in the United States on a ‘temporary’ E–2 visa that does not confer ‘permanent residency status’ for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a
• explaining that because the decedent “had been a Japanese citizen residing in the United States on a ‘temporary’ E–2 visa that does not confer ‘permanent residency status’ for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a
• explaining that because the decedent “had been a Japanese citizen residing in the United States on a ‘temporary’ E–2 visa that does not confer ‘permanent residency status’ for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a
• dismissing a request for consequential damages on a motion to dismiss because plaintiff “pleaded no facts suggesting . . . the damages alleged were within the contemplation of the parties at the time their contract was formed.”
• dismissing negligence claims against Chase stemming from alleged fraudulent wire transfer of $152,000 because “[i]t is settled that a depositor may not sue his bank in negligence based solely on the contractual relationship between bank and depositor”
• “The difference between negligence and gross negligence is one of fact, not law, and plaintiff alleges no facts to sustain a cause of action for gross negligence.” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).