Legal Opinion
Sumitomo Corp. v. Parakopi Compania Maritima
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided October 12, 1979No. 79 Civ. 3961 (HFW)PublishedCited by 18 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
WERKER, District Judge.
Petitioners Sumitomo Corporation (“Sumitomo”) and Oshima Shipbuilding Co., Ltd. (“Oshima”) commenced this action against respondent Parakopi Compañía Marítima, S.A. (“Parakopi”) for an order compelling Parakopi to proceed to arbitration and appointing a third arbitrator.
BACKGROUND
The principal facts are not in dispute.
Sumitomo and Oshima are corporations organized and existing under the laws of Japan. Sumitomo has its principal place of business in Tokyo, Japan, and Oshima has its principal place of business in Nagasaki, Japan. Parakopi is incorporated in Panama,…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Hilton v. GuyotSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
- Clarkson Co. v. ShaheenCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1976
- Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Gulf Oil Corp.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1976
- Cornfeld v. Investors Overseas Services, Ltd.District Court, S.D. New York · 1979
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Laker Airways Ltd. v. Sabena, Belgian World AirlinesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1984
- Europcar Italia, S.P.A. v. Maiellano Tours, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1998
- In Re Mercury Construction Corporation, Mercury Construction Corporation v. The Moses H. Cone Memorial HospitalCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1981
- Ishwar Jain v. Henri Courier De MereCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1995
- Sigval Bergesen, as Owners of the M/t Sydfonn, Frostfonn and Nordfonn v. Joseph Muller CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1983
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.