Vitol, S.A. v. Primerose Shipping Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 federal appellate · 2 district ·

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

1. “gross undercapitalization, insolvency, siphoning of funds, failure to observe corporate formalities and maintain proper corporate records, non-functioning of officers, control by a dominant stockholder, and injustice or fundamental unfairness[,] ... intermingling of funds; overlap in ownership, officers, directors, and other personnel; common office space; the degrees of discretion shown by the allegedly dominated corporation; and whether the dealings of the entities are at arm’s length.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 988 F. Supp. 2d 579 - Dry Handy Investments, Ltd. v. Corvina Shipping Co. · 39 F. Supp. 3d 769 - Flame S.A. v. Industrial Carriers, Inc.

2. “[The appellee ship owners] ask this Court to hold that the choice of forum in England, not the subject matter of the underlying claim, is dispositive of whether jurisdiction lies with the district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1333 . In other words, [appellees] contend that [the] choice of forum in the English Commercial Court for an otherwise valid admiralty claim there divests any resulting judgment of its admiralty character in this country so it can no longer be considered as an admiralty matter. We find this argument unpersuasive and unsupported. The approach advocated by [appel-lees], which looks purely to form at the expense of substance, is unsupported by citation to any case as authority for its position. Indeed, the dispositive question is not whether the English Judgment issued from an “admiralty court,” but rather, whether the claim itself is maritime in nature.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Flame S.A. v. Freight Bulk Pte. Ltd.

3. “It is well recognized that federal courts in the United States possess jurisdiction in admiralty over claims to enforce a foreign admiralty judgment. See, e.g., 1 Benedict on Admiralty § 106 (“[A]dmiralty jurisdiction in the United States may be broadly stated as extending to ... any claim to enforce a judgment of a foreign admiralty court.”). Even in the earliest days of the Republic, the Supreme Court confirmed that the courts of the United States possess jurisdiction to recognize the admiralty decrees of foreign admiralty courts. See Penhallow v. Doane’s Adm’rs, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 53, 97, 1 L.Ed. 507 (1795) (Iredell, J.) (“It was clearly shown at the bar, that a Court of Admiralty, in one nation, can carry into effect the determination of the [C]ourt of Admiralty of another.”).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Flame S.A. v. Freight Bulk Pte. Ltd.