Frummer v. Hilton Hotels International, Inc.

229 N.E.2d 696, 20 N.Y.2d 737, 283 N.Y.S.2d 99, 1967 N.Y. LEXIS 1316
New York Court of Appeals·Decided July 7, 1967·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Motion to amend remittitur granted. Return of remittitur requested and, when returned, it will be amended by adding thereto the following: Upon the appeal herein there was presented and necessarily passed upon a question under the Constitution of the United States, viz.: Defendant British corporation contended that it was deprived of due process in violation of its rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The Court of Appeals held that there was no violation of defendant’s constitutional rights. [See 19 N Y 2d 533.]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Frummer v. Hilton Hotels International, Inc., 229 N.E.2d 696, 20 N.Y.2d 737, 283 N.Y.S.2d 99, 1967 N.Y. LEXIS 1316 (N.Y. 1967).

229 N.E.2d 696 (Frummer v. Hilton Hotels International, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In re Aluminum Warehousing Antitrust Litigation
90 F. Supp. 3d 219 (S.D. New York, 2015)
Uebler v. Boss Media AB
432 F. Supp. 2d 301 (E.D. New York, 2006)
Genpharm Inc. v. Pliva-Lachema A.S.
361 F. Supp. 2d 49 (E.D. New York, 2005)
Meteoro Amusement Corp. v. Six Flags
267 F. Supp. 2d 263 (N.D. New York, 2003)
Weiss v. La Suisse
69 F. Supp. 2d 449 (S.D. New York, 1999)
Jazini ex rel. Jazini v. Nissan Motor Co.
148 F.3d 181 (Second Circuit, 1998)
Greenwood v. Tides Inn, Inc.
504 F. Supp. 992 (D. Maryland, 1980)
Pneuma-Flo Systems, Inc. v. Universal MacHinery Corp.
454 F. Supp. 858 (S.D. New York, 1978)