Antitrust Jurisdiction under Customary International Law
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 9550685 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Karl M Meessen (University of Augsburg, corresponding author) |
| Year | 1984 |
| Volume | 78 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 783-810 |
| Publication date | 1984-10-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | American Journal of International Law (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0002-9300 • E-ISSN: 2161-7953 |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.2307/2202196 |
| OpenAlex | W2314909718 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 8 |
When, on October 24, 1983, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California handed down its decision in Timberlane Lumber Co. v. Bank of America and denied U.S. jurisdiction out of regard for the Honduran “system of justice,” there may have been some surprise that the case was still pending. The Timberlane decision of 1976 of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which remanded the matter to the district court, had already become a classic, even though it was preceded by the 1968 decision in United States v. First National City Bank on the production of documents located abroad. The Timberlane approach outlined by Judge Choy, under which the exercise of antitrust jurisdiction has to be restrained by a case-by-case analysis of various factors, was widely discussed (and usually praised) in legal writing, and was also followed by federal courts of the Second, Third, Fifth, Ninth and Tenth Circuits
Business · Court decision · Economic Justice · Jurisdiction · Ninth · Original jurisdiction · Political science · Sociology · Surprise · Conflict of Laws and Jurisdiction · Corporate Law and Human Rights · International Arbitration and Investment Law · Law
| Citation velocity | historical |
|---|---|
| Highly cited | No |