Case Law Developed Prior to the 1999 Montreal Convention Sample Clauses

Case Law Developed Prior to the 1999 Montreal Convention. While the 70 years of existence of the 1929 Warsaw Convention have gener- ated an impressive amount of case law, this study should verify whether Courts still rely on case law developed under previous instruments in cases governed by the 1999 Montreal Convention, in order to ascertain whether or not there is uniformity in the interpretation tools used by these Courts. In the United States, the 6th District Court highlighted in Doe that the wording of the 1999 Montreal Convention was different to the one of the 1929 Warsaw Convention, with the consequence that previous case law did not have any authority: […] the Montreal Convention is a new treaty that we interpret as a matter of first impression, and there is no legal authority that would require us to import ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇’s Warsaw Convention determination to govern this Montreal Convention claim.180 The Court nevertheless admitted that domestic or foreign decisions rendered under the previous text were still valid precedent, insofar as they concerned similar provisions and were delivered before the ratification of the 1999 Montreal Convention: 177 However, more and more comparative analyses are being carried out by both Cours de cassation. See, Cour de cassation de Belgique, Rapport annuel 160 et seq. (2018), Source: Belgian Federal Public Service of Justice, <▇▇▇▇▇://▇▇▇▇▇▇▇.▇▇▇▇▇▇▇.▇▇/sites/default/ files/downloads/20180321_jp_31.pdf> (accessed 31 March 2020). 178 ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ v. Air Canada, (2014) 3 SCR 340, at 50. 179 CJEU, 26 September 2019, GN v. ZU acting for ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, C-532/18, ECLI:EU:C:2019:788 (Opinion), at 44. 180 Doe v. Etihad Airways, P.J.S.C., 870 F.3d 406 (6th Cir. 2017), at 415. Because these Supreme Court cases analyzed aspects of the Warsaw Convention that we have no reason to believe have changed following the ratification of the Montreal Convention (and that neither party has argued have changed follow- ing the ratification of the Montreal Convention), it is reasonable to conclude that these cases form part of the ‘precedent’ consistent with which, according to the Explanatory Note […], the drafters expected signatories to construe Article 17(1) of the Montreal Convention. Accordingly, we have adopted ▇▇▇▇’ definition of ‘accident’, and our discussion of damages […] will be guided by ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇’▇ def- erence to the forum jurisdiction’s choice-of-law rules.181 The UK Supreme Court implicitly confirmed in ▇▇▇▇▇ the continuity to a certain extent of the case law related to these instruments...