In the United States District Court for the District of the District of Columbia: Federal Trade Commission v. Warner Chilcott Holdings et al.

2006 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 112-117
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Federal Trade Commission ◽  
District Of Columbia ◽  
The United States ◽  
District Court

Zedan v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

1988 ◽  
Vol 82 (4) ◽  
pp. 828-830
Author(s):  
Edward M. Leigh
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Saudi Arabia ◽  
Direct Effect ◽  
District Of Columbia ◽  
The United States ◽  
Telephone Call ◽  
District Court ◽  
Kingdom Of Saudi Arabia ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
American Citizen

Plaintiff Zedan, an American citizen, brought suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for breach of a contract guaranteeing wages and profits. While performance under the contract occurred in Saudi Arabia, plaintiff alleged that the jurisdictional requirements under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (28 U.S.C. §§1330, 1602-1611 (1982)) (FSIA) were satisfied by a recruitment call in California from a representative of the royal overseer of a private Saudi company. The district court granted the Saudi motion to dismiss. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (per Silberman, J.) unanimously affirmed and held: (1) that the telephone call did not have the requisite substantiality of contact with the United States; (2) that it was not sufficient to form the basis of a cause of action; and (3) that the alleged breach did not have sufficient direct effect in the United States to satisfy the exceptions to immunity under the FSIA.

Extradition statute—constitutional law—separation of powers—injunction against U.S. Government— class action: Lobue v. Christopher. 893 F.Supp. 65.

1996 ◽  
Vol 90 (1) ◽  
pp. 102-105
Author(s):  
Judith Hippler Bello ◽  
Jacques Semmelman
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
District Of Columbia ◽  
The United States ◽  
Class Action ◽  
District Court ◽  
Department Of State ◽  
Secretary Of State ◽  
Northern District

U.S. District Court, D.C., August 31, 1995; modified September 15, 1995.This action involved a constitutional challenge to the 147-year-old extradition statute, 18 U.S.C. §3184, on die ground that it violates the separation of powers. Plaintiffs were two individuals who had been found extraditable to Canada, pursuant to the extradition treaty between die United States and Canada, by a U.S. magistrate judge in the Northern District of Illinois. They brought an action in the District of Columbia against the Secretary of State, the Department of State, and the United States for a judgment declaring the extradition statute unconstitutional, and an injunction against their extradition. Plaintiffs also sought certification of a class consisting of persons who are or will be under threat of extradition from the United States pursuant to the statute, and an injunction against any such extradition. The court held (per Lamberth, J.) that (1) the extradition statute violates the separation of powers and is therefore unconstitutional; (2) the United States is enjoined from taking any further act toward the surrender of the plaintiffs to Canada; and (3) the proposed class is certified, and the United States is enjoined from surrendering anyone under the statute.

United States v. Yunis

1989 ◽  
Vol 83 (1) ◽  
pp. 94-99 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lynda M. Clarizio
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
District Of Columbia ◽  
The United States ◽  
District Court ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Independent Basis ◽  
Civil Aircraft ◽  
Personal Jurisdiction

Defendant Fawaz Yunis, a Lebanese resident and citizen, was charged for his alleged involvement in the 1985 hijacking of a Jordanian civil aircraft in the Middle East. Defendant moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that, under general principles of international law, the court lacked subject matter and personal jurisdiction over a crime committed by a nonresident alien on foreign soil and that federal law provided no independent basis for such jurisdiction. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia (per Parker, J.) denied the motion to dismiss in part and granted it in part, and held: (1) that those counts of the indictment charging the defendant with violation of section 32(a) of the Destruction of Aircraft Act (18 U.S.C. §32(a) (1986)) (Aircraft Piracy Act) should be dismissed on the ground that this section provided no jurisdiction over aircraft piracy offenses having no connection to U.S. territory; (2) that traditional principles of international law provided sufficient grounds for asserting both subject matter and personal jurisdiction over the other crimes charged; and (3) that the Act for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Hostage Taking (18 U.S.C. §1203 (1986)) (Hostage Taking Act) and section 32(b) of the Aircraft Piracy Act imposed liability for the offenses allegedly committed by the defendant.

In Re Letter of Request from Crown Prosecution Service of United Kingdom

1989 ◽  
Vol 83 (4) ◽  
pp. 929-933
Author(s):  
Bradford L. Smith
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
District Of Columbia ◽  
The United States ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Criminal Investigation ◽  
District Court ◽  
Criminal Proceeding ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
The United Kingdom

Appellant, Thomas J. Ward, appealed a district court decision appointing commissioners to obtain evidence sought by the Crown Prosecution Service of the United Kingdom (Crown Service). The district court had appointed the commissioners pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1782 (1982), to depose in the United States certain third-party witnesses with knowledge relevant to a criminal investigation in the United Kingdom. On review, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (per Ginsburg, J.) affirmed the district court’s decision and held: that 28 U.S.C. §1782 authorized the appointment of the commissioners, even though there was no pending criminal proceeding in the United Kingdom when the depositions were requested and the procedure for the depositions might vary from that normally applicable in the United States. The court remanded the case, however, for a further determination to ensure that the depositions would comply with procedural rules applicable in the United Kingdom.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document