Stonington Partners, Inc. v. Lernout & Hauspie Speech Products N.V.’s Empirical Analysis
310 F.3d 118 · 2002
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently February 2024 · most notably In re Exide Technologies (2008), Quaak v. Klynveld Peat Marwick Goerdeler Bedrijfsrevisoren (2004)
7 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 11 U.S.C. § 105 · 11 U.S.C. § 510
Relies on Insurance Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie Des Bauxites De Guinee · Hilton v. Guyot · Laker Airways Limited v. Sabena Belgian World Airlines Klm Laker Airways Limited · Somportex Ltd. v. Philadelphia Chewing Gum Corp. · Maxwell Communication Corporation Homan Maxwell Communication Corporation Homan v. Societe Generale
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The federal Courts of Appeals have not established a uniform rule for determining when injunctions on foreign litigation are justified. Two standards, it appears, have developed. Courts following the “liberal” or “lax” standard will issue an injunction where policy in the enjoining forum is frustrated, the foreign proceeding would be vexatious or would threaten a domestic court’s in rem or quasi in rem jurisdiction or other equitable considerations, and finally, where allowing the foreign proceedings to continue would result in delay. The Courts of Appeals for the Fifth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits generally apply this standard. By contrast, the Second, Sixth and District of Columbia Circuits use a more restrictive approach, rarely permitting injunctions against foreign proceedings. These courts approve enjoining foreign parallel proceedings only to protect jurisdiction or an important public policy. Vexatiousness and inconvenience to the parties carry far less weight. Our court is among those that resort to the more restrictive standard.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.