6 Cited authorities

Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd.
561 U.S. 247 (2010) Cited 1,496 times 178 Legal Analyses
Holding extraterritorial application of a statute is a merits question, not a question of subject matter jurisdiction
Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts
472 U.S. 797 (1985) Cited 1,808 times 19 Legal Analyses
Holding that “the Due Process Clause of course requires that the named plaintiff at all times adequately represent the interests of the absent class members”
PDK Labs, Inc. v. Friedlander
103 F.3d 1105 (2d Cir. 1997) Cited 486 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding "that Friedlander lacks standing to sue PDK under § 43 of the Lanham Act" because "Friedlander's dogged insistence that PDK's products are sold without proper FDA approval suggests . . . that Friedlander's true goal is to privately enforce alleged violations of the FDCA."
Bersch v. Drexel Firestone, Incorporated
519 F.2d 974 (2d Cir. 1975) Cited 203 times
Holding that it would have been "an abuse of discretion" to exercise pendent jurisdiction over the state-law claims of a class of foreign plaintiffs in that action
Zupnick v. Fogel
989 F.2d 93 (2d Cir. 1993) Cited 28 times
Upholding settlement agreement because it was not binding on non-settling defendants
Section 302 - Personal jurisdiction by acts of non-domiciliaries
N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 302 Cited 4,322 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that service may be made "to a person of suitable age and discretion at the actual place of business, dwelling place or usual place of abode of the person to be served and by ... mailing the summons to the person to be served at his or her last known residence"

Anwar et al v. Fairfield Greenwich Limited et al

6 Cited authorities

Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd.

Holding extraterritorial application of a statute is a merits question, not a question of subject matter jurisdiction

Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts

Holding that “the Due Process Clause of course requires that the named plaintiff at all times adequately represent the interests of the absent class members”

PDK Labs, Inc. v. Friedlander

Holding "that Friedlander lacks standing to sue PDK under § 43 of the Lanham Act" because "Friedlander's dogged insistence that PDK's products are sold without proper FDA approval suggests . . . that Friedlander's true goal is to privately enforce alleged violations of the FDCA."

Bersch v. Drexel Firestone, Incorporated

Holding that it would have been "an abuse of discretion" to exercise pendent jurisdiction over the state-law claims of a class of foreign plaintiffs in that action

Zupnick v. Fogel

Upholding settlement agreement because it was not binding on non-settling defendants

Section 302 - Personal jurisdiction by acts of non-domiciliaries

Holding that service may be made "to a person of suitable age and discretion at the actual place of business, dwelling place or usual place of abode of the person to be served and by ... mailing the summons to the person to be served at his or her last known residence"