ARTICLE
11 January 2017

Deciphering RJR Nabisco's 'Domestic Injury' Requirement

O
Orrick

Contributor

Orrick logo
Orrick is a global law firm focused on serving the technology & innovation, energy & infrastructure and finance sectors. Founded over 150 years ago, Orrick has offices in 25+ markets worldwide. Financial Times selected Orrick as the Most Innovative Law Firm in North America for three years in a row.
Rob Reznick, David Goldstein and Logan Dwyer co-authored an article for Law360 that reviews the U.S. Supreme Court's articulation of the "domestic injury" requirement in RJR Nabisco v. European Union.
United States Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

Rob Reznick, David Goldstein and Logan Dwyer co-authored an article for Law360 that reviews the U.S. Supreme Court's articulation of the "domestic injury" requirement in RJR Nabisco v. European Union. Since the Supreme Court ruling came down six months ago, several district courts have tried to determine whether a plaintiff has pleaded a "domestic injury." They have employed dramatically different analyses, none of which seemingly is consistent with RJR Nabisco itself. This article examines the requirement, what courts have made of it, and where they have gone wrong.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More