Balogh v. Persson

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 district court was mistaken in excusing the plaintiff from complying with “personal jurisdiction, service, and venue requirements” in a plenary action for recognition and enforcement of awards
• explaining that Congress’s intent was to 10 effectively codify the Tate Letter’s restrictive approach to sovereign immunity
• noting that ICSID “determinations are final” and national courts “may review such awards solely to confirm their authenticity”
• noting that district courts enforcing ICSID awards are precluded from inquiring into the merits of the underlying controversy
• stating that an award-debtor may make “non-merits challenges to the award” such as challenging its “authenticity” or “finality”
• explaining that “[i]nterest is a ‘pecuniary obligation’” because “‘[p]ecuniary’ means ‘of, relating to, or consisting of money’” (quoting Pecuniary, Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed., 2014))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).