3 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 9 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 E.A.S.T., Inc. Of Stamford, Connecticut v. M/v Alaia, Advance Co., Inc., Claimant-Appellant.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | E.A.S.T., Inc. Of Stamford, Connecticut v. M/v Alaia, Advance Co., Inc., Claimant-Appellant Anchor | green | “the arrest of a vessel prior to arbitration is not inconsistent with the convention.” | 3 |
| 2 | Borden, Inc. v. Meiji Milk Products Co., Ltd. | green | “the desire for speedy decisions in arbitration is entirely consistent with a desire to make as effective as possible recovery upon awards, after they have been made, which is what provisional remedies do.” | 3 |
| 3 | Bahrain Telecommunications Co. v. Discoverytel, Inc. | green | “nothing in the convention divests federal courts of jurisdiction to issue provisional remedies ... such as an attachment, when appropriate in international arbitrations.” | 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.