Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 27 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 Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd. Anchor | red | “when a statute provides for some extraterritorial application, the presumption against extraterritoriality operates to limit that provision to its terms.” | 15 |
| 2 | North South Finance Corporation v. Abdulrahman A. Al-Turki | green | “is silent as to any extraterritorial application,” | 3 |
| 3 | North South Finance Corporation v. Abdulrahman A. Al-Turki | green | “when a statute gives no clear indication of an extraterritorial application, it has none.” | 3 |
| 4 | Norex Petroleum Ltd. v. Access Industries, Inc. | green | “because the principal actions and events underlying its claim occurred outside of the united states.” | 3 |
| 5 | Norex Petroleum Ltd. v. Access Industries, Inc. | green | “control of yugraneft, a russian oil company, illegally obtaining much of norex's ownership of yugraneft and reducing it from the controlling majority shareholder to a powerless minority shareholder.” | 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.