Darby Trading Inc. v. Shell International Trading & Shipping Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the “direction to [a third party] to cease purchasing [the product] from [the plaintiff] . . . surely relate[s] to the common business pursued by” the parties”
• observing that in Scutti I the Second Circuit held that “[o]nly if the [economic] pressure is unrelated to the parties’ common business will the court entertain a finding of wrongful means”
• noting that although “lost sales or customers can satisfy the ‘injury within New York’ requirement under Section 302(a)(3)(ii), those lost sales must be in the New York market, and those lost customers must be New York customers”
• suggesting, in the personal jurisdiction context, that injury to a plaintiffs business occurs in New York when the plaintiff loses sales and customers “in the New York market”
• dismissing a claim for lack of personal jurisdiction because plaintiff failed to allege an injury in the form of loss of New York sales or New York-based customers
• “[I]n the absence of ‘egregious’ circumstances, courts have consistently rejected promissory estoppel claims when the alleged injuries consisted of lost profits, lost fees, foregone business opportunities or damage to business reputation.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).