World Fuel Services Trading, DMCC v. Hebei Prince Shipping Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that courts “need not resolve” choice of law where it would not impact any relevant analysis
• noting that a Lauritzen choice-of-law analysis is not necessary where contract at issue contains a valid choice-of-law clause
• explaining that a “verified complaint” containing “sworn statements” based on “personal knowledge” is akin to an “opposing affidavit for summary judgment purposes” (quoting Williams, 952 F.2d at 823)
• determining that a court “need not resolve the choice-of-law question, [when] it makes no discernible difference to the relevant analysis in the case at bar” (citing Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797, 838 n.20 (1985
• “[W]e need not resolve the choice-of-law question, as it makes no discernible difference to the relevant analysis.”
• “[W]e need not resolve the choice-of-law question, as it makes no discernible difference to the relevant analysis in the case at bar.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).