Legal Opinion

Kyocera Corp. v. Prudential-Bache Trade Services, Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided July 23, 2002No. Nos. 01-15630, 01-15653, 01-16182, 01-16392, 01-16394 and 01-16528PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

RESTANI, Judge.

Kyocera Corp. (“Kyocera”), a Japanese corporation, appeals from the March 6, 2001 Order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California confirming an award by an Arbitration Tribunal of the International Chamber of Commerce (the “Tribunal”) in favor of Prudential Bache Trade Corp. (“Prudential Trade”), LaPine Technology Corp. (“La-Pine”) and LaPine Holding Company on their claims that Kyocera had breached a contract to manufacture and deliver certain computer disk drives. In 1997, we reversed the district court’s first order confirming the award…

2Cases cited22 opinions

First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. KaplanSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness SocietySupreme Court of the United States · 1975
Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dept. of Health and Human ResourcesSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
Blanton v. Womancare, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1985
California Shoppers, Inc. v. Royal Globe Insurance Co.California Court of Appeal · 1985

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

3Cited by1 opinion

Kyocera Corporation, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant v. Prudential-Bache Trade Services, Inc., Formerly Prudential-Bache Trade Corporation, Prudential Capital & Investment Services, Inc., Lapine Technology Corporation, and Lapine Holding Company, Inc., Defendants-Counter-Claimants-Appellees. Lapine Technology Corporation v. Kyocera Corporation, Lapine Technology Corporation, Plaintiff-Counter-Claim-Defendant-Appellee v. Kyocera Corporation, Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Plaintiff-Appellant v. Prudential-Bache Trade Services, Inc., Fba Prudential-Bache Trade Corporation Prudential Capital & Investment Services, Inc., Defendants-Counter-Claimants-AppelleesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002