Article contents
United Rope Distributors, Inc. v. Seatriumph Marine Corp
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 February 2017
Abstract
- Type
- International Decisions
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of International Law 1993
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.
- 1
- Cited by