Legal Opinion
Haarhuis v. Kunnan Enterprises, Ltd.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Decided May 28, 1999No. 98-7175PublishedCited by 25 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge WALD.
WALD, Circuit Judge:
Appellants are nine professional tennis players (collectively “Haarhuis”) who filed an action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia claiming breach of contract against Kunnan Enterprises (“Kunnan”), a Taiwanese corporation. While that action was pending, appellees, reorganizers of Kunnan (“Reor-ganizers”) appointed by the Taichung District Court, Taiwan, Republic of China pursuant to Taiwanese insolvency laws, filed an action in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Columbia…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Kumho Tire Co. v. CarmichaelSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
- Hilton v. GuyotSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
- Garcia v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Matter of CulmerUnited States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · 1982
- Baez v. United States Department of JusticeCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1982
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- James Owens v. Republic of SudanCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2017
- Donald Phillips v. Shastine Tangilag, M.D.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2021
- Luther Stanley v. Cottrell Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2015
- In Re Fairfield Sentry Ltd. LitigationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2011
- Halasa v. ITT Educational Services, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2012
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.