Chevron Corp. v. Naranjo’s Empirical Analysis
667 F.3d 232 · 2012
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1782
Relies on Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment · Skelly Oil Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co. · Donovan v. Bierwirth · Ball v. Metallurgie Hoboken-Overpelt, S.A. · China Trade & Development Corp. v. M.V. Choong Yong
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In cases such as this one with multiple defendants-over some of whom the court indisputably has personal jurisdiction-in which all defendants collectively challenge the legal sufficiency of the plaintiff's cause of action, we may address first the facial challenge to the underlying cause of action and, if we dismiss the claim in its entirety, decline to address the personal jurisdictional claims made by some defendants.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) Except as otherwise provided in subsections (2) and (3), a court of this state shall recognize a foreign-country judgment to which this act applies. (2) A court of this-state shall not recognize a foreign-country judgment if any of the. following apply: (a) The judgment was rendered under a judicial system that does not provide impartial tribunals or procedures compatible with the requirements of due process of law. (b) The foreign court did not have personal jurisdiction over the defendant. (c) The foreign court did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter. (3) A court of this state need not recognize a foreign-country judgment if any of the following apply: (c) The judgment or the cause of action on which the judgment is based is repugnant to the public policy of this state or of the United States. (h) The specific proceeding in the foreign court leading to the judgment was not compatible with the requirements of due process of law. (4) A party resisting recognition of a foreign-country judgment has the burden of establishing that a ground for nonrecognition stated in subsection (2) or (3) exists.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[w]e need not address here whether and how international comity concerns would affect a hypothetical effort by a state to vest its courts with the authority to issue so radical an injunction. There is no such statutory authorization, for New York has authorized no such relief. To resolve the dispute before us, we need only address whether the statutory scheme announced by New York’s Recognition Act allows the district court to declare the Ecuadorian judgment non-recognizable, or to enjoin plaintiffs from seeking to enforce that judgment. Because we find that it does not, the injunction collapses before we reach issues of international comity.”
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.