Skip to main content

Anyango v. Rolls-Royce Corp.

Citations

  • 971 N.E.2d 654
  • 2012 WL 3076100
  • 2012 Ind. LEXIS 603

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss
  • noting that “our Trial Rule 4.4(C) wisely entrusts the forum non conveniens decision to the trial court.”
  • upholding dismissal .where trial court’s \order granting the Defendants' dismissal motion addressed each of the enumerated factors in Trial Rule 4.4(C)\
  • sustaining the motion to dismiss in part because the trial court “anticipated that there will be significant problems in dealing with resolving the application of Canadian law”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: David, Dickson, Massa, Rucker, Sullivan

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

2 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

22 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.