4 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 29 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side — they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Madalynn Carey v. Bayerische Hypo-Und Vereinsbank Ag.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Madalynn Carey v. Bayerische Hypo-Und Vereinsbank Ag Anchor | green | “even if the court is a permissible venue with proper jurisdiction over the claim.” | 11 |
| 2 | Madalynn Carey v. Bayerische Hypo-Und Vereinsbank Ag | green | “the doctrine of forum non conveniens is a discretionary device permitting a court in rare instances to dismiss a claim even if the court is a permissible venue with proper jurisdiction over the claim.” | 10 |
| 3 | In the Matter of the Arbitration Between Monegasque De Reassurances S.A.M. (Monde Re) v. Nak Naftogaz of Ukraine and State of Ukraine | green | “we have been reluctant to find foreign courts 'corrupt' or 'biased.” | 5 |
| 4 | In the Matter of the Arbitration Between Monegasque De Reassurances S.A.M. (Monde Re) v. Nak Naftogaz of Ukraine and State of Ukraine | green | “the alternative forum is characterized by a complete absence of due process or an inability of the forum to provide substantial justice to the parties.” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment — for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.