Legal Opinion

Paulownia Plantations de Panama Corp. v. Rajamannan

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided November 5, 2009No. A07-2199PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

MEYER, Justice.

Paulownia Plantations de Panama Corporation (PPP) invested in appellant Am-brose Harry Rajamannan’s plan to commercially grow trees in Panama. After the tree plantations failed, PPP brought suit in Minnesota, where Rajamannan resides and where PPP wired the majority of its investment money. The district court issued a forum non conveniens dismissal on the condition that Panama would accept jurisdiction of the case. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that a Panamanian “blocking statute” deprived Panama courts of jurisdiction when a case is dismissed by a foreign…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Gulf Oil Corp. v. GilbertSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
  2. Piper Aircraft Co. v. ReynoSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  3. Pollux Holding Ltd. v. The Chase Manhattan Bank, Springwell Navigation Corporation v. The Chase Manhattan BankCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2003
  4. Hague v. Allstate Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1979
  5. Aguinda v. Texaco, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 2001

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Espinoza v. Evergreen Helicopters, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 2016
  2. Aranda v. Philip Morris U.S. Inc.Supreme Court of Delaware · 2018
  3. Volkman v. Hanover Investments, Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2014
  4. Ansello v. Wisconsin Central, Ltd.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2017
  5. Harmon v. Commissioner of RevenueSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2017

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API