Hawknet, Ltd. v. Overseas Shipping Agencies

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a defendant had not waived an argument that it failed to make in the district court because the argument “would have been directly contrary to controlling precedent in this Circuit” at the time of trial
• remarking that personal jurisdiction defense is not waived where, prior to the time it was raised, it would have been “contrary to controlling precedent”
• noting that a party does not waive a defense when controlling precedent previously foreclosed it
• remarking that personal jurisdiction defense is not waived where, prior to the time it was raised, it would have been “contrary to controlling precedent”
• finding that despite the fact that “the parties relied on [a prior overruled decision] when structuring their transactions, the Supreme Court has held that a reliance interest is insufficient to overcome the presumption of retroactivity set forth in Harper”
• relying on Jaldhi to affirm district court’s vacatur of attached EFTs under Rule E(4)(f)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Other cases named Hawknet, Ltd. v. Overseas Shipping Agencies

2 other CourtListener records share this case name.

• Hawknet, Ltd. v. Overseas Shipping Agencies
  Second Circuit· 2009-11-13· cited 8×
• Hawknet, Ltd. v. Overseas Shipping Agencies
  Second Circuit· 2009-12-22