Bankers Trust Company Ss Edgar Queeny Villaneuva Compania Naviera Sa v. Bethlehem Steel Corporation Chatterjee’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

33 federal appellate · 8 district · 3 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 99 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In Melville v. American Home Insurance Co., 584 F.2d 1306, 1311-1313 (3d Cir.1978), this court determined that the ‘flexible conflicts methodology’ combining interest analysis and Restatement Second of Conflicts of Laws contacts theory employed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in the tort case of Griffith v. United Air Lines, Inc., 416 Pa. 1 , 203 A.2d 796 (1964), is to be extended to contracts actions. Thus, under Pennsylvania choice-of-law principles, the place having the most interest in the problem and which is the most intimately concerned with the outcome is the forum whose law should be applied. Griffith, 416 Pa. at 22 , 203 A.2d at 805-806 .””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. McCarthy v. Arnold Foods Co. · 694 F. Supp. 98 - Reading Metal Craft Co. v. Hopf Drive Associates

2. “[w]hile many procedural and evidentiary errors do not automatically give rise to due process violations, in our view, the errors here constituted a gross abuse of discretion which affected the fundamental fairness of the proceedings below. Due process mandates that a judicial proceeding give all parties an opportunity to be heard on the critical and decisive allegations which go to the core of the parties’ claim or defense and to present evidence on the contested facts____ The validity of the release and the special power of attorney upon which it is predicated are critical and decisive issues of petitioner’s claim. At virtually every stage of the proceedings, the district court’s rulings inhibited Mrs. Chatterjee’s [the appellant] ability to substantiate her allegations of fraud and forgery. The court’s procedural rulings placed Mrs. Chatterjee in the proverbial Catch-22. She had a property interest at stake and in order to protect that interest she sought procedures to attempt to prove that the release was fraudulently executed. We believe that she was erroneously deprived of this interest by virtue of the district court's rulings. In this regard, petitioner was denied the procedural fairness that the fifth amendment assures to all persons who, whether intentionally or by vicissitudes of fate, find their lives, liberty or property in the hands of the courts of the United States. [ 752 F.2d at 890-91 (emphasis added)].”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re the Extradition of Singh · United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

3. “If the foreign law to which the forum's choice-of-law rule refers does not differ from that of the forum on the issue, the issue presents a 'false conflict.' "); Lambert v. Kysar, 983 F.2d 1110 , 1114-15 (1st Cir.1993) ("We need not resolve the [conflict of law] issue ... as the outcome is the same under the substantive law of either jurisdiction.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Lucker Manufacturing Unit of Amclyde Engineered Products Inc v. Home Insurance Company · Hammersmith v. TIG Insurance