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.
6 canonical passages across 5 cases, quoted by 39 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 Ottley v. Schwartzberg.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ottley v. Schwartzberg Anchor | green | “the showing required to avoid summary confirmation is high.” | 11 |
| 2 | Ottley v. Schwartzberg | green | “the showing required to avoid summary confirmation is high” | 6 |
| 3 | Europcar Italia, S.P.A. v. Maiellano Tours, Inc. | green | “a parallel proceeding is ongoing in the originating country and there is a possibility that the award will be set aside.” | 6 |
| 4 | International Trading and Industrial Investment Company v. Dyncorp Aerospace Technology | green | “the new york convention provides only several narrow circumstances when a court may deny confirmation of an arbitral award, confirmation proceedings are generally summary in nature.” | 6 |
| 5 | Termorio SA ESP v. Electrants SP | green | “may refuse to enforce the award brought under the new york convention only on the grounds explicitly set forth in article v of the convention.” | 5 |
| 6 | Imperial Ethiopian Government v. Baruch-Foster Corporation | green | “the showing required to avoid summary confirmation is high.” | 5 |
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.