green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
8.4 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 2002 ·
…recognizing the difficulty of interpreting foreign law, courts may defer to foreign government interpretations.
⚠ not in text
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 2004 ·
…when jurisdiction is invoked under the clayton act, the court examines the defendant's contacts with the united states as a whole to determine whether the requirements of due process have been met.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 2001 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2001
2013
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
In Re: Automotive Refinishing Paint Antitrust Litigation Basf Ag and Basf Coatings Ag
(2×)
when jurisdiction is invoked under the clayton act, the court examines the defendant's contacts with the united states as a whole to determine whether the requirements of due process have been met.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Karaha Bodas Co. v. Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara
recognizing the difficulty of interpreting foreign law, courts may defer to foreign government interpretations.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Karaha Bodas Company, L.L.C. v. Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara (\Pertamina\")"
recognizing the difficulty of interpreting foreign law, courts may defer to foreign government interpretations.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Animal Science Products, Inc. v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co.
Corp, 197 F.3d 694, 714 (5th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 917 , 12Í S.Ct. 276, 148 L.Ed.2d 200 (2000) (holding, without citation to Pink , that “[t]he fact that U.S. courts routinely give deference to U.S. agencies empowered to interpret U.S. law and U.S. courts may give deference to foreign governments before the court does not entail that U.S. courts must give deference to all agency determinations made by all foreign agencies not before the court.”).
cited
Cited "see"
Jaffer v. Standard Chartered Bank
See Access Telecom, Inc. v. MCI Telecommunications Corporation, 197 F.3d 694, 716 (5th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 917 , 121 S.Ct. 275 , 292, 148 L.Ed.2d 200 (2000); see also Tex. Civ.
discussed
Cited "see"
Cappel v. Riaso, LLC
See Access Telecom v. MCI Telecommunications Corp., 197 F.3d 694, 717 (5th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 917 , 121 S.Ct. 275 , 292, 148 L.Ed.2d 200 (2000) (“The mere renting or ownership of property in a forum is not enough [to create personal jurisdiction] when that property is not used to conduct business in the forum.”); see also Bryant v. Roblee, 153 S.W.3d 626, 630-31 (Tex.App.Amarillo 2004) (“Ownership of real property alone does not provide contacts sufficient to establish general jurisdiction over a nonresident corporation.”).
cited
Cited "see"
Animal Science Products, Inc. v. China National Metals & Minerals Import & Export Corp.
See 197 F.3d 694 , reh’g, en banc, denied, 210 F.3d 365 , cert. denied, 531 U.S. 917 , 121 S.Ct. 275 , 292, 148 L.Ed.2d 200 (2000).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
MCI Telecommunications Corp.
v.
Access Telecom, Inc. SBC Communications, Inc. v. Access Telecom, Inc. and Telefonos de Mexico, S. A. de C. V. v. Access Telecom, Inc.
v.
Access Telecom, Inc. SBC Communications, Inc. v. Access Telecom, Inc. and Telefonos de Mexico, S. A. de C. V. v. Access Telecom, Inc.
No. 99-1817; No. 99-1822; No. 99-1824.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 2, 2000.
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Justice O’Connor took no part in the consideration or decision of these petitions.Reported below: 197 F. 3d 694.