§Why CasetextPricing

Motorola Credit Corporation, Appellant-Respondent, Nokia Corporation, Plaintiff-Counter- Defendant, Motorola, Inc., et al., Counter-Defendants,v.Standard Chartered Bank, Respondent-Appellant, Murat Hakan Uzan, et al., Defendants-Counter- Claimants, Kemal Uzan, et al., Defendants.

Brief

11 Cited authorities

  1. Daimler AG v. Bauman

    571 U.S. 117 (2014)   Cited 5,603 times   236 Legal Analyses
    Holding that foreign corporations may not be subject to general jurisdiction "whenever they have an in-state subsidiary or affiliate"

  2. Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd.

    561 U.S. 247 (2010)   Cited 1,458 times   177 Legal Analyses
    Holding extraterritorial application of a statute is a merits question, not a question of subject matter jurisdiction

  3. Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain

    542 U.S. 692 (2004)   Cited 1,164 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that no "private cause of action" had been Congressionally authorized, and thus, plaintiff was "not entitled to a remedy"

  4. Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.

    569 U.S. 108 (2013)   Cited 473 times   45 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the ATS does not authorize an action for a tort that occurred entirely outside of the United States

  5. F. Hofpmann-La Roche Ltd. v. Empagran S. A.

    542 U.S. 155 (2004)   Cited 210 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding domestic effects exception does not apply where "price-fixing conduct significantly and adversely affects both customers outside the United States and customers within the United States, but the adverse foreign effect is independent of any adverse domestic effect"

  6. City of Pontiac Policemen's & Firemen's Retirement System v. UBS AG

    752 F.3d 173 (2d Cir. 2014)   Cited 391 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[i]t is well-established that general statements about ... integrity" are "too general" to be material

  7. Hilton v. Guyot

    159 U.S. 113 (1895)   Cited 1,098 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Holding that matters should not be retried absent a showing of prejudice, fraud, or some other extenuating circumstance "where there has been opportunity for a full and fair trial abroad before a court of competent jurisdiction"

  8. Global Reinsurance Corp. -U.S. Branch v. Equitas Ltd.

    2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 2251 (N.Y. 2012)   Cited 39 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a claim barred by the FTAIA cannot be brought under the Donnelly Act because, among other reasons, "[t]he established presumption is . . . against the extraterritorial operation of New York law . . . and we do not see how it could be overcome in a situation where the analogue federal claim would be barred by congressional enactment"

  9. Byblos v. Sekerbank

    2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 2501 (N.Y. 2008)   Cited 26 times
    Holding that comity is not "a matter of absolute obligation" and need not be applied when repugnant to public policy

  10. Ayyash v. Koleilat

    115 A.D.3d 495 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)   Cited 9 times
    Describing when great annoyance existed