Sequihua v. Texaco, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently November 2014
4 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 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 Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno · Koster v. Lumbermens Mut Casualty Co · Banco Nacional De Cuba v. Sabbatino · Texas Industries, Inc. v. Radcliff Materials, Inc. · Midlantic National Bank v. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Consideration of [§ 403 of the Restatement of Foreign Relations] factors leads to the inescapable conclusion that the Court should decline to exercise jurisdiction over this ease. The challenged activity and the alleged harm occurred entirely in Ecuador; Plaintiffs are all residents of Ecuador; Defendants are not residents of Texas; enforcement in Ecuador of any judgment issued by this Court is questionable at best; the challenged conduct is regulated by the Republic of Ecuador and exercise of jurisdiction by this Court would interfere with Ecuador’s sovereign right to control its own environment and resources; and the Republic of Ecuador has expressed its strenuous objection to the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court. Indeed, none of the factors favor jurisdiction. Accordingly, the case should be dismissed under the doctrine of comity of nations.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Based upon the important foreign policy implications of this case, upon the international legal principle that each country has the right to control its own natural resources, and the strong opposition ex pressed by the Republic of Ecuador to this litigation, the Court finds without reservation that Plaintiffs state law claims, if well-pleaded, raise issues of international relations which implicate federal common law. Consequently, this court has federal question jurisdiction and the motion to remand must be denied.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.