Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. California

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 Sherman Act applies to foreign conduct that was meant to produce and did in fact produce some substantial effect in the United States”
• holding that the Sherman Act applies to foreign conduct that produces some substantial effect in the United States
• holding that the extraterritorial provision at issue “applies to foreign conduct that was meant to produce and did in fact produce some substantial effect in Page Proof Pending Publication the United States”
• recognizing that the Sherman Antitrust Act applies extraterritorially, and stating that a jurisdictional nexus exists when “foreign conduct was meant to produce and did in fact produce some substantial effect in the United States”
• concluding that since such a reading of the case “would be a much more dramatic result for the Court to have reached sub silentio, I am inclined to doubt that it meant to rule so broadly”
• concluding that since such a reading of the case “would be a much more dramatic result for the Court to have reached sub silentio, I am inclined to doubt that it meant to rule so broadly”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).