Associated Container Transportation Ltd v. United States Hamburg-Sudamerikanische Dampschiffahrts-Gesellschaft Eggert & Amsinck’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently March 2010
1 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 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
Relies on National Association for Advancement of Colored People v. State of Alabama Patterson · Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc. · California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited · United Mine Workers v. Pennington · Oklahoma Press Pub Co v. Walling US News Printing Co
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) Issuance; service; production of material; testimony. Whenever the Attorney General, or the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice, has reason to believe that any person may be in possession, custody, or control of any documentary material, or may have any information, relevant to a civil antitrust investigation, he may, prior to the institution of a civil or criminal proceeding thereon, issue in writing, and cause to be served upon such person, a civil investigative demand requiring such person to produce such documentary material for inspection and copying or reproduction, to answer in writing written interrogatories, to give oral testimony concerning documentary material or information, or to furnish any combination of such material, answers, or testimony. Whenever a civil investigative demand is an express demand for any product of discovery, the Attorney General or the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division shall cause to be served, in any manner authorized by this section, a copy of such demand upon the person from whom the discovery was obtained and notify the person to whom such demand is issued of the date on which such copy was served.” (Emphasis added.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The mere fact that a lawsuit involves activities abroad, however, does not imply that American courts are without jurisdiction. See, e.g., Filartiga v. PenaIrala, 630 F.2d 876, 889-90 (2d Cir.1980). The Supreme Court has indicated that application of the act of state doctrine depends upon a ‘balance of relevant considerations,’ Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, supra, 376 U.S. at 428 , 84 S.Ct. at 940 , and this Court has mandated ‘a careful case-by-case analysis of the extent to which the separation of powers concerns ... are implicated.’ Texas Trading & Milling Corp. v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, 647 F.2d 300 , 316 n. 38 (2d Cir.1981), cert.denied, 454 U.S. 1148 , 102 S.Ct. 1012 , 71 L.Ed.2d 301 (1982).” Ibid.”
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.