green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
8.1 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1998 ·
…the fact that an international transaction may be subject to laws and remedies different and less favorable than those of the united states is not a valid basis to deny enforcement, provided that the law of the chosen forum is not inherently unfair.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1993 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1993
2009
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 20 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
R.A. Argueta, Husband Mary Argueta, Wife Grupo Sal Corporation v. Banco Mexicano, S.A. Francisco Suarez Davila Alonso Cuevas Del Villar
But cf. Riley v. Kingsley Underwriting Agencies, Ltd., 969 F.2d 953, 956 (10th Cir.) (“A motion to dismiss based on a forum selection clause frequently is analyzed as a motion to dismiss for improper venue under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(3).”) (citations omitted), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1021 , 113 S.Ct. 658 , 121 L.Ed.2d 584 (1992).
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 90,257, 11 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 1670 Irmgard Lipcon Mitchell Lipcon Charles R. Lipcon Barbara Lipcon v. Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, A.K.A. Corporation of Lloyd's, A.K.A. Society of Lloyd's, A.K.A. Lloyd's of London
the fact that an international transaction may be subject to laws and remedies different and less favorable than those of the united states is not a valid basis to deny enforcement, provided that the law of the chosen forum is not inherently unfair.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Lipcon v. Underwriters at Lloyd's of London
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
the fact that an international transaction may be subject to laws and remedies different and less favorable than those of the united states is not a valid basis to deny enforcement, provided that the law of the chosen forum is not inherently unfair.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Robert J. Willson
See Rayes v. Johnson, 969 F.2d 700, 702-03 (8th Cir.), cert denied, 506 U.S. *742 1021, 113 S.Ct. 658 , 121 L.Ed.2d 584 (1992).
cited
Cited "see"
Boaz Rafaeli v. State of MO
See Rayes v. Johnson, 969 F.2d 700, 703 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1021 , 113 S.Ct. 658 , 121 L.Ed.2d 584 (1992).
cited
Cited "see"
Jack Babcock v. Carl White
See Rayes v. Johnson, 969 F.2d 700, 702-03 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1021 , 113 S.Ct. 658 , 121 L.Ed.2d 584 (1992).
cited
Cited "see"
Corns v. Collins
See Rayes v. Johnson, 969 F.2d 700, 703 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 658 (1992).
discussed
Cited "see"
Leroy Coolidge v. St. Paul Police Department
See Rayes v. Johnson, 969 F.2d 700, 703 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 658 (1992). 1 The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable Jonathan G.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Premises Known as 7245 James Avenue South
See Rayes v. Johnson, 969 F.2d 700, 702-03 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 658 (1992). 6 Accordingly, we affirm. 1 The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota
cited
Cited "see"
McKinley Robinson v. Morris Cavanaugh, Dining Room Sgt. Dick Moore Steve Long Michael Groose David Dormire
See Rayes v. Johnson, 969 F.2d 700, 702-03 (8th Cir.) (standard of review), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 658 , 121 L.Ed.2d 584 (1992).
cited
Cited "see"
Michael Inman v. Don Smith Erifilie C. Marsh
See Rayes v. Johnson, 969 F.2d 700, 702-03 (8th Cir.) (standard of review), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 658 (1992). 2 Accordingly, we affirm.
discussed
Cited "see"
Grunwald v. Bronkesh
(2×)
See Laird v. Blacker, 2 Cal.4th 606 , 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 550, 558 , 828 P.2d 691, 699 , cert. denied, — U.S.-, 113 S.Ct. 658 , 121 L.Ed.2d 584 (1992).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Chloe Z Fishing Co. v. Odyssey Re (London) Ltd.
II § 3 (“The court of a Contracting State ... shall ... refer the parties to arbitration, unless it finds that the [ ] agreement in null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed.”); Oriental Commercial and Shipping Co., Ltd. v. Rosseel, N.V., 609 F.Supp. 75 (S.D.N.Y.1985) (holding that Under Article II, § 3, an agreement to arbitrate is “null and void” only when it is subject to internationally recognized defenses such as duress, mistake, fraud, or waiver, or when it contravenes fundamental policies of the forum nation); see also Riley v. Kingsley Underwriting Agencies, …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Stamm v. Barclays Bank of New York
See, e.g., Riley v. Kingsley Underwriting Agencies, Ltd., 969 F.2d 953, 960 (10th Cir.) (involving claim against Lloyd’s by Name alleging fraud with respect to COL clause), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1021 , 113 S.Ct. 658 , 121 L.Ed.2d 584 (1992); Tufts, 1996 WL 533639 , at *5.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Carl Thomas Swope v. John K. Cameron
See, e.g., Rayes v. Johnson, 969 F.2d 700 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 658 (1992); Johnson v. Williams, 788 F.2d 1319 (8th Cir. 1986); and Nelson v. Redfield Lithograph Printing, 728 F.2d 1003 (8th Cir. 1984).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Carl Thomas Swope v. Dr. John K. Cameron, ph.d. Michele Flowers, Psychologist
See, e.g., Rayes v. Johnson, 969 F.2d 700 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1021 , 113 S.Ct. 658 , 121 L.Ed.2d 584 (1992); Johnson v. Williams, 788 F.2d 1319 (8th Cir.1986); and Nelson v. Redfield Lithograph Printing, 728 F.2d 1003 (8th Cir.1984).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Sharts v. Natelson
See, e.g., Laird v. Blacker, 2 Cal. 4th 606 , 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 550, 554-55 , 828 P.2d 691, 695-96 , cert. denied,-U.S.-, 113 S.Ct. 658 , 121 L.Ed.2d 584 (1992); Hennekens v. Hoerl, 160 Wis.2d 144 , 465 N.W.2d 812 , 816 n. 7 (1991); 2 Legal Malpractice, supra, § 18.11, at 38-39.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Shell v. R.W. Sturge Ltd.
See Bonny, 3 F.3d at 161-62 ; Roby, 996 F.2d at 1363-66 ; see also Riley v. Kingsley Underwriting Agencies, Ltd., 969 F.2d 953 (10th Cir.), cert, denied, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 658 , 121 L.Ed.2d 584 (1992).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Tabron v. Grace
First, as the Seventh Circuit explained in Maclin , the district court must consider as a threshold matter the merits of the plaintiffs claim. “[B]efore the court is justified in exercising its discretion in favor of appointment, it must first appear that the claim has some merit in fact and law.” Maclin, 650 F.2d at 887 (quoting Spears v. United States, 266 F.Supp. 22, 25-26 (S.D.W.Va.1967)); see also Rayes v. Johnson, 969 F.2d 700, 703 (8th Cir.) (“The appointment of counsel should be given serious consideration if the [indigent] plaintiff has not alleged a frivolous or malicious claim…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Tabron v. Grace
In so doing, we elaborate upon Smith-Bey by delineating further criteria for ascertaining the "special circumstances" under which counsel may be appointed for an indigent litigant in a civil case. 32 First, as the Seventh Circuit explained in Maclin, the district court must consider as a threshold matter the merits of the plaintiff's claim. "[B]efore the court is justified in exercising its discretion in favor of appointment, it must first appear that the claim has some merit in fact and law." Maclin, 650 F.2d at 887 (quoting Spears v. United States, 266 F.Supp. 22, 25-26 (S.D.W.Va.1967)); see…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Riley
v.
Kingsley Underwriting Agencies, Ltd.
v.
Kingsley Underwriting Agencies, Ltd.
No. 92-664.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Dec 7, 1992.
Published
Citer courts: Eleventh Circuit (2)
C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.