Case Citator › Quality Foods de Centro America, S.A. and Duroparts de El Salvador, S.A. v. Latin American Agribusiness Development Corporation, S.A.

Quality Foods de Centro America, S.A. and Duroparts de El Salvador, S.A. v. Latin American Agribusiness Development Corporation, S.A.

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Good law
Court
Eleventh Circuit
Citation
711 F.2d 989
Decided
Confirmed treatments
0
Flagged citations read
39 of 39
Citing cases (total)
39
Good law
Every flagged citation to this case has been read, and none of them overrules, limits, or questions it. All 39 flagged citations have been read. None shows a court adversely treating Quality Foods de Centro America v. Latin American Agribusiness Development Corporation, so it remains good law on this review.
More on how this was screened

Its quotation of Conley v. Gibson's “no set of facts” pleading formula predates Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, which rejected that formula; later citing opinions apply Twombly's plausibility standard while continuing to cite Quality Foods for other pleading principles.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

39 later cases cite Quality Foods de Centro America, S.A. and Duroparts de El Salvador, S.A. v. Latin American Agribusiness Development Corporation, S.A.; 39 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Quality Foods de Centro America, S.A. and Duroparts de El Salvador, S.A. v. Latin American Agribusiness Development Corporation, S.A.?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

No reviewed court has overruled or limited this case.

Every one of the 39 flagged citations was read, and each turned out to be something other than adverse treatment: a routine application, a party's argument the court rejected, or the case itself discussing older law. That reading is the finding this page exists to report.

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Quality Foods de Centro America, S.A. and Duroparts de El Salvador, S.A. v. Latin American Agribusiness Development Corporation, S.A. and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace