Nike, Inc. v. Wu’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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

1. “In the banking context, the requisite inquiry under CPLR 302(a)(1)'s first prong may be complicated by the nature of inter-bank activity, especially given the widespread use of correspondent accounts nominally in New York to facilitate the flow of money worldwide, often for transactions that otherwise have no other connection to New York, or indeed the United States. As a result, determining in an individual case whether a foreign bank's maintenance and use of a correspondent account is purposeful or coincidental may often prove ... difficult[.] Nonetheless, complaints alleging a foreign bank's repeated use of a correspondent account in New York on behalf of a client-in effect, a "course of dealing"-show purposeful availment of New York's dependable and transparent banking system, the dollar as a stable and fungible currency, and the predictable jurisdictional and commercial law of New York and the United States. 2”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Nike, Inc. v. Wu

2. “adding them to the Banks' real-time monitoring lists, etc . This rather undermines the Banks' contention that the breadth of the request should weigh against a finding of comity. The Magistrate Judge did not clearly err in determining that the Subpoenas were sufficiently specific and that this weighed in favor of granting the Assignee's motion to compel. 2. Fourth Factor: Alternative Means of Securing the Information Similarly, the Magistrate Judge did not err in disagreeing with the Banks that”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Nike, Inc. v. Wu

3. “[i]n determining whether the use of a correspondent account by a foreign bank is sufficiently purposeful to constitute a transaction of business within the state,.... the relevant distinction is between 'unintended and unapproved use of a correspondent bank account, where the non-domiciliary bank is a passive and unilateral recipient' and 'repeated, deliberate use that is approved by the foreign bank on behalf and for the benefit of a customer.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Nike, Inc. v. Wu