Nicol v. Tanner’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 7 state decisions

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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Hilton has been severely and consistently criticized by commentators and courts. Three significant criticisms have been advanced. First, Hilton mandates a misplaced retaliation against judgment creditors for acts of foreign states irrelevant to their cases and over which they had no control. “Second, judgments are enforced to bring an end to litigation so that the rights of parties might finally be determined and judicial energies might be conserved. These considerations are thwart ed by a reciprocity requirement. The judgment of a foreign nation, when rendered in a proceeding in which the foreign court had jurisdiction and the issues were fully and fairly adjudicated, should be entitled to no less effect on policy grounds than a judgment of another state or federal court . “Third, there is serious doubt that Hilton achieves either of its two probable goals: (1) protecting Americans abroad; and (2) encouraging foreign nations to enforce United States judgments. If protecting American interests abroad was a goal of Hilton , it is clear that reciprocity does not achieve that goal because it does not look to the fairness or persuasiveness of the foreign judgment. Furthermore, as stated in Golomb, Recognition of Foreign Money Judgments: A Goal-Oriented Approach, 43 St. John’s L.Rev. 604, 616, ‘While protecting nationals from unfair treatment abroad is a valid exclusive interest of a state, favoring nationals despite fair treatment abroad should not be commended.’ If encouraging ”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. de la Mata v. American Life Insurance · 491 F. Supp. 404 - Royal Bank of Canada v. Trentham Corp.

2. ““ . . . there has been an opportunity for a full and fair trial abroad before a court'of competent jurisdiction, conducting the trial upon regular proceedings, after due citation or voluntary appearance of the defendant, and under a system of jurisprudence likely to secure an impartial administration of justice between the citizens of its own country and those of other countries, and there is nothing to show either prejudice in the court, or in the system of laws under which it is sitting, or fraud in procuring the judgment. * * 256 N.W.2d 802 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Medical Arts Building Ltd. v. Eralp