Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T09:16:32.175Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

United Rope Distributors, Inc. v. Seatriumph Marine Corp

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Herbert M. Lord
Affiliation:
Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle
Harold J. Bacon
Affiliation:
Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
International Decisions
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 930 F.2d 532, 533.

2 Id. at 534.

3 Id.

4 770 F.Supp. 128, 131–33.

5 785 F.Supp. 446, 451–52.

6 Id. at 452.

7 United Rope Distributors, Inc. v. Kimberly Line, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3539 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 1992).

8 77 N.Y.2d 28, 565 N.E.2d 488 (1990).

9 77 N.Y.2d at 35–36.

10 484 U.S. 97 (1987).

11 770 F.Supp. at 134.

12 785 F.Supp. at 451.

13 In finding jurisdiction, Judge Cedarbaum noted that “the ready availability of the telephone, telex and fax makes it possible” to do from abroad “all the things that a foreign corporation once needed to send an agent to New York to do.” Id. at 450.

14 Id. at 453.

15 930 F.2d at 534.

16 Omni Capital Int’l, Ltd. v. Rudolf Wolff & Co., 484 U.S. 97 (1987).

17 930 F.2d at 535.

18 Id. at 536.

19 Id.

20 954 F.2d 1279 (7th Cir. 1992).

21 Id. at 1294 n.3.