Brink's Limited v. South African Airways

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that “[a]rticle 8(e) does not designate any particular section of a waybill or any particular words which must be used to relay the required information”
• stating that interpretation of a treaty must begin “with the literal language” and where the language is “ ‘reasonably susceptible of only one interpretation, [the court’s] task of interpretation ends there.”
• \[T]he Supreme Court recently admonished lower courts to refrain from developing federal common law 'under cover' of advancing the goal of uniformity in Warsaw Convention cases.\
• “Our interpretation of the Warsaw Convention must begin ‘with the literal language.’” (quoting Buonocore v. Trans World Airlines, 900 F.2d 8, 9 (2d Cir. 1990))
• “Under any analysis, the Republic of South Africa clearly is the center of gravity of this dispute, and has the greatest interest in having its law applied to this controversy.” (citation omitted)
• where injury of theft was felt in the United States, South Africa has greater interest than New York in the alleged wilful misconduct or gross negligence of South African Airways, a government instrumentality, and the South African police

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).