Weil v. Morgan Stanley DW Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that, as “a matter of hornbook law,” the scope of a choice of law provision is determined under the law that the provision selects
• “[H]aving failed to state an underlying claim for breach of fiduciary duty against Morgan Stanley itself, Weil’s aiding and abetting claim against HarrisDirect necessarily fails.”
• “[H]aving failed to state an underlying claim for breach of fiduciary duty against Morgan Stanley itself, Weil’s aiding and abetting claim against HarrisDirect necessarily fails.”
• “[H]aving failed to state an underlying claim 51 Countercl. ¶ 144, see also id. ¶ 188 (alleging Stone & Paper, through Diamond, “exercised board-level control in the preparation of the tax returns at Citrin Cooperman”
• “Typically, fiduciary duties are imposed when someone exercises dominion and control over the assets and property of another such that the controlling person should be prohibited from dealing with those assets and property in a manner than unfairly profits himself.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).