Voting Rights Act. Evidence of Discriminatory Purpose. District Court for the District of Columbia Holds That Evidence of Discrimination in an Existing Electoral System Supports an Inference in a Preclearance Proceeding That Extension of the System Was Motivated by a Discriminatory Purpose. Arizona v. Reno, 887 F. Supp. 318 (D. D. C. 1995), Consideration of Juris. Postponed to Hearing on Merits, 64 U. S. L. W. 3410, 3414 (U. S. Dec. 8, 1995) (No. 95-299)

1996 ◽  
Vol 109 (3) ◽  
pp. 681
Keyword(s):  
District Of Columbia ◽  
Voting Rights ◽  
Electoral System ◽  
District Court ◽  
Voting Rights Act

Judges’ Race and the Voting Rights Act: Perceived Expertise in Three-Judge District Court Panels

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-38
Author(s):  
Maxwell Mak ◽  
Andrew H. Sidman ◽  
Vincent Palmeri ◽  
Nico Denise ◽  
Ruben Huertero
Keyword(s):  
Voting Rights ◽  
District Court ◽  
Voting Rights Act

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document