§Why CasetextPricing

Mashreqbank PSC, Appellant,v.Ahmed Hamad A1 Gosaibi & Brothers Company, Respondent.---------------------------------Ahmed Hamad Al Gosaibi & Brothers Company, Third-Party Respondent, v. Maan Abdul Waheed Al Sanea, Third-Party Appellant, Awal Bank BSC, Third-Party Defendant.

Brief

36 Cited authorities

  1. Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno

    454 U.S. 235 (1981)   Cited 4,732 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that potential change in law cannot, by itself, fend off dismissal under forum non conveniens absent showing that new law is "clearly inadequate or unsatisfactory"

  2. Islamic Republic v. Pahlavi

    62 N.Y.2d 474 (N.Y. 1984)   Cited 707 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Diverging from federal doctrine on whether alternative forum must be available to consider forum non conveniens claims

  3. Schultz v. Boy Scouts of America, Inc.

    65 N.Y.2d 189 (N.Y. 1985)   Cited 638 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that although misconduct occurred in New York, New Jersey was the locus of the tort because that was where plaintiffs' injuries occurred

  4. Padula v. Lilarn Props. Corp.

    84 N.Y.2d 519 (N.Y. 1994)   Cited 323 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing loss allocating and conduct regulating aspects of law imposing strict and vicarious liability for failure to take adequate safety measures at work site but characterizing it as "primarily conduct regulating"

  5. Royal and Sun Alliance Ins. v. Century Intern

    466 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2006)   Cited 148 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that the test for abstention in deference to foreign and state court parallel proceedings is similar

  6. Shin-Etsu Chem. Co., Ltd. v. Icici Bank Ltd.

    9 A.D.3d 171 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)   Cited 122 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that India has a "keen() interest() in governing the affairs of its financial institutions to insure uniformity and consistency in the processing of financial transactions and in the interpretation of . . . banking statutes and laws"

  7. R. Maganlal Co. v. M.G. Chemical Co., Inc.

    942 F.2d 164 (2d Cir. 1991)   Cited 151 times
    Holding that need to apply foreign law was not dispositive factor, especially where key evidence regarding production and condition of goods was located in New York

  8. Hart v. General Motors Corp.

    129 A.D.2d 179 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)   Cited 155 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the law of the place of incorporation governs "the threshold demand issue" of standing to sue

  9. Banknote Corp. v. Daniele

    45 A.D.3d 338 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)   Cited 86 times
    Holding that plaintiff's pleadings and affidavits alleging that the non-domicile defendants used their New York bank accounts to further their misdeeds, contracted to provide goods for New York clients, and traveled to New York for business was a sufficient start to warrant jurisdictional discovery

  10. Ehrlich-Bober v. University

    49 N.Y.2d 574 (N.Y. 1980)   Cited 138 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Upholding personal jurisdiction over defendant public university located in Texas based upon use of a correspondent bank in New York to carry out a transaction with plaintiff New York securities dealer where other contacts existed—i.e., the disputed “reverse repurchase” agreements involved phone calls and visits to plaintiff's office in New York, and the placing of a securities order and delivery and payment in that office