Samco Global Arms, Inc. v. Carlos Arita

How courts have described this case

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

• no direct effect because “no monies or goods were due in the United States”
• “We readily conclude that the 1985 contract constituted a commercial activity under the FSIA. Our Circuit has held that where the activity at issue involves a government’s contract for purchase and sale of goods, the activity is commercial, and not sovereign.”
• discussing speculative and indirect harm

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).