The Society of Lloyd's v. James Frederick Ashenden

How courts have described this case

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

• noting no foreign legal system has adopted “every jot and tittle of American due process”
• interpreting an identical provision of the Uniform Foreign Money-Judgments Recognition Act under Illinois law
• relying on the use of “system” in Illinois’s Recognition Act and rejecting an approach that would allow parties to challenge the due process underlying “particular judgments”
• discussing differences between the procedures in the United States and the United Kingdom and explaining why those variations do not prevent recognition and enforcement of a money judgment
• rejecting argument that courts should examine particular judgments, as opposed to judicial systems
• affirming summary judgment for Lloyds under Illinois Uniform Foreign Money- Judgment Recognition Act, explaining that existence of due process in English courts is a \question . . . not open to doubt\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).