{"text_format":"2","workbook":"xls","n_sheets":1,"sheets":["report2"],"not_rendered":{"charts":0,"images":0,"macros":0,"external_links":1,"defined_names":1,"comments":0,"pivot_tables":0},"unopened":[],"bounds":{"document_bytes":16777216,"sheet_cells":100000,"run_cost":"one","rows_first":2000,"rows_last":500,"rows_between":2000,"halvings":0,"cell_chars":16384,"cell_head_chars":4096},"cells_cut":0,"cells_raw":0,"read":"whole","date_system":"1900","formulas":"cached_only"}

{"sheet":"report2","index":0,"n_rows":25,"n_cols":5,"rows_kept":25,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[0,2,0,3],[0,4,0,5],[1,2,1,3],[1,4,1,5],[2,2,2,3],[2,4,2,5],[3,2,3,3],[4,2,4,3],[8,2,8,3],[9,2,9,3],[10,2,10,3],[11,2,11,3],[13,2,13,3],[14,2,14,3],[18,2,18,3]],"flags":["formulas_cached_only"]}
[null,"1.","Record Nr.",null,"UNINA9910511508503321"]
[null,null,"Autore",null,"Brand Ronald A"]
[null,null,"Titolo",null,"Forum non conveniens : history, global practice, and future under the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements / / Ronald A. Brand, Scott R. Jablonski"]
[null,null,"Pubbl/distr/stampa",null,"New York, : Oxford University Press, c2007"]
[null,null,"ISBN",null,"0-19-985534-X"]
[{"$nulls":4},"1-283-11608-1"]
[{"$nulls":4},"9786613116086"]
[{"$nulls":4},"0-19-974508-0"]
[null,null,"Descrizione fisica",null,"1 online resource (359 p.)"]
[null,null,"Collana",null,"CILE studies ; ; v. 3"]
[null,null,"Disciplina",null,"347.012"]
[null,null,"Soggetti",null,"Forum non conveniens"]
[{"$nulls":4},"Conflict of laws - Jurisdiction"]
[null,null,"Lingua di pubblicazione",null,"Inglese"]
[null,null,"Formato",null,"Materiale a stampa"]
[null,null,null,"Livello bibliografico","Monografia"]
[null,null,null,"Note generali","Description based upon print version of record."]
[null,null,null,"Nota di bibliografia","Includes bibliographical references and index."]
[null,null,"Nota di contenuto",null,"\"\"TABLE OF CONTENTS\"\"; \"\"PREFACE\"\"; \"\"CHAPTER 1: COMMON LAW FORUM NON CONVENIENS: FOUR COUNTRIES, FOUR APPROACHES\"\"; \"\"CHAPTER 2: THE UNITED KINGDOM\"\"; \"\"I. Scotland: From forum non competens to most appropriate forum\"\"; \"\"II. England: From reticence to recognition\"\"; \"\"A. First steps: the oppressive and vexatious principle\"\"; \"\"B. The most suitable forum approach\"\"; \"\"C. Modern forum non conveniens doctrine in England\"\"; \"\"III. The impact of the Brussels Convention and Regulation\"\"; \"\"A. The basic framework\"\"; \"\"B. Owusu v. Jackson\"\""]
[{"$nulls":4},"\"\"IV. Current forum non conveniens analysis in the United Kingdom\"\"\"\"CHAPTER 3: THE UNITED STATES\"\"; \"\"I. Introduction\"\"; \"\"II. Early development\"\"; \"\"A. Admiralty roots in the federal courts\"\"; \"\"B. State courts and constitutional issues\"\"; \"\"C. Extending the doctrine beyond admiralty cases\"\"; \"\"III. Modern forum non conveniens doctrine\"\"; \"\"A. Gilbert and Koster: The foundations of current doctrine\"\"; \"\"B. Federal transfer rules\"\"; \"\"C. Jurisdictional developments limiting the need for forum non conveniens\"\"; \"\"D. Refinement in the Supreme Court: Piper Aircraft\"\""]
[{"$nulls":4},"\"\"CHAPTER 5: AUSTRALIA\"\"\"\"I. Between \"\"vexation and oppression\"\" and the \"\"most appropriate forum\"\"\"\"; \"\"II. The \"\"clearly inappropriate forum\"\" test\"\"; \"\"A. Oceanic Sun Line Special Shipping Co. Inc. v. Fay\"\"; "]
[{"$nulls":4},"\"\"B. Voth v. Manildra Flour Mills Pty. Ltd\"\"; \"\"C. Dow Jones & Co., Inc. v. Gutnick\"\"; \"\"III. Internal case allocation: the Cross-Vesting Act\"\"; \"\"IV. Summary and conclusion\"\"; \"\"CHAPTER 6: SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES IN COMMON LAW FORUM NON CONVENIENS DOCTRINE\"\"; \"\"I. Introduction\"\"; \"\"II. Similarities in forum non conveniens doctrines\"\""]
[{"$nulls":4},"\"\"A. The requirement of an available, alternative forum\"\"\"\"B. Allocation of the general burden of proof on the defendant\"\"; \"\"C. Consideration of private interest factors\"\"; \"\"D. Trial court discretion in applying forum non conveniens analysis\"\"; \"\"E. Ability to impose conditions on a stay or dismissal\"\"; \"\"F. Benefits of existing similarities in comparative analysis\"\"; \"\"III. Differences in forum non conveniens doctrines\"\"; \"\"A. Distinctions setting Australia apart\"\"; \"\"B. Distinctions setting the United States apart\"\"; \"\"C. Other distinctions\"\""]
[{"$nulls":4},"\"\"IV. Conclusions: similarity with distinctions\"\""]
[null,null,null,"Sommario/riassunto","Giving an in-depth analysis of the doctrine of forum non conveniens as it has evolved, this book focuses on four major common law countries - UK, US, Canada, and Australia. It analyzes the similarities and differences of the doctrine among those four countries, comparing this to analogous laws found in civil law countries."]