Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp.

1989 ◽  
Vol 83 (3) ◽  
pp. 565-568
Author(s):  
Carlos M. Vázquez
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
District Court ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
Southern District ◽  
Law Of Nations ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Argentine Republic ◽  
Federal Jurisdiction

Plaintiffs and respondents, Amerada Hess Shipping Corp. and United Carriers, Inc., were respectively the charterer and owner of the Hercules, a crude oil tanker that was bombed in international waters by Argentine military aircraft during the war over the Malvinas or Falkland Islands. The ship was severely damaged and had to be scuttled off the coast of Brazil. After unsuccessfully seeking relief in Argentina, the companies filed suit against defendant and appellant, the Argentine Republic, in the Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs argued that the federal courts had jurisdiction under the Alien Tort Statute (28 U.S.C. §1350 (1982)), which confers federal jurisdiction over “any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.” The district court dismissed the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (28 U.S.C. §§1330, 1602-1611 (1982)) (FSIA) is by its terms the sole basis of federal jurisdiction over cases against foreign states. A divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed. The Supreme Court (per Rehnquist, C.J.) unanimously reversed the Second Circuit and held that the FSIA provides the exclusive basis of federal jurisdiction over suits against foreign states.

National Petrochemical Co. of Iran v. the M/T Stolt Sheaf

1989 ◽  
Vol 83 (2) ◽  
pp. 368-371
Author(s):  
Jerome M. Marcus
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New York ◽  
United Arab Emirates ◽  
The United States ◽  
Executive Branch ◽  
District Court ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
Southern District ◽  
The Government ◽  
The U.S

In an action brought in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, plaintiff, the National Petrochemical Co. of Iran (NPC), sought damages against Monnris Enterprises of Dubai, the United Arab Emirates, Rotexchemie Brunst & Co. of Hamburg (Rotex), and Rotex’s Geneva affiliate, Formula S.A., for breach of an agreement to sell chemicals to NPC. Asserting that NPC is a subsidiary of the National Iranian Oil Co., which is in turn owned wholly by the Government of Iran, defendants moved to dismiss on the ground that the United States does not recognize the Khomeini Government of Iran and, hence, that neither Iran nor its instrumentality NPC has standing to sue in U.S. courts. The district court granted the motion, NPC appealed and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held: (1) that a foreign state may have standing to sue in U.S. courts even if the United States does not recognize its government or have diplomatic relations with it; (2) that an unrecognized government will have standing to sue if the U.S. executive branch has evinced a willingness to permit the plaintiff to litigate its claims in U.S. courts; and (3) that the level of intercourse between the United States and Iran, and a Statement of Interest filed in this case by the United States as amicuš curiae, show that the executive branch is willing to permit NPC to litigate its claims in U.S. courts.

scholarly journals Notes Procedural Fencing in Retiree Benefits Disputes: Applications of the First-Filed Rule in Federal Courts

2007 ◽  
Vol 69 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Julie Vanneman
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
West Virginia ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Phone Call ◽  
District Court ◽  
Health Coverage ◽  
Southern District ◽  
Maximum Benefit

Basil Chapman retired from ACF Industries, a railroad-car maker, after thirty-eight years of service. In December 2003, he received an unexpected phone call at his West Virginia home from a union representative, who informed him that an ACF executive wanted to speak with him. When they spoke, the executive informed Mr. Chapman that ACF was planning on changing its retirees’ health coverage plan. The ACF plan would now have a lifetime maximum benefit cap on hospital and surgical expenses for each participant and would require retirees to make monthly contributions. According to court papers filed later, Mr. Chapman responded, “We have a contract. You can’t do that.” Then, he said that he would “file in federal court” against ACF. The next business day, ACF filed a declaratory judgment action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri asking the court to rule that retiree benefits were not vested and that ACF accordingly could alter benefits unilaterally. On January 26, 2004, Mr. Chapman, other named plaintiffs, and their union sued ACF in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia.

International Law in the American Courts – Khulumani v. Barclay National Bank Ltd.: The Decision Heard ‘Round the Corporate World

2008 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. 639-682 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristen Hutchens
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
District Courts ◽  
Civil Action ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
Corporate World ◽  
Law Of Nations ◽  
National Bank ◽  
Federal Jurisdiction

On June 30, 1980, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued Filártiga v. Peña-Irala. In this landmark case, the Paraguayan plaintiffs sought to hold Americo Norbeto Peña-Irala, a high-ranking Paraguayan police officer, liable for torture that led to the death of Joel Filártiga in Paraguay. They rested their main jurisdictional argument “upon the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1350, which provides: ‘The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.'” The Second Circuit held, “[D]eliberate torture perpetrated under color of official authority violates universally accepted norms of the international law of human rights, regardless of the nationality of the parties. Thus, whenever an alleged torturer is found and served with process by an alien within our borders, § 1350 provides federal jurisdiction.” It added that “Our holding today, giving effect to a jurisdictional provision enacted by our First Congress, is a small but important step in the fulfillment of the ageless dream to free all people from brutal violence.”

United States v. Palestine Liberation Organization

1988 ◽  
Vol 82 (4) ◽  
pp. 833-837
Author(s):  
Eric S. Koenig
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New York ◽  
United Nations ◽  
The United States ◽  
District Court ◽  
Palestine Liberation Organization ◽  
Southern District ◽  
The Status ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Summary Judgment

Plaintiff, the United States, brought an action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and four individuals seeking an injunction to close the PLO’s Permanent Observer Mission (Mission) to the United Nations as violative of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1987 (ATA). The district court (per Palmieri, J.) entered summary judgment for defendants and held: (1) the ATA does not require the closure of the PLO’s Mission to the United Nations; (2) the status of the PLO’s Mission, an invitee of the United Nations, is protected by the Agreement Between the United States and the United Nations Regarding the Headquarters of the United Nations (Headquarters Agreement); and (3) Congress did not intend the ATA to supersede the Headquarters Agreement.

scholarly journals Federalists, Federalism, and Federal Jurisdiction

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 205-244 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alison L. LaCroix
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Party System ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Federal Judiciary ◽  
Early National ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
History Of ◽  
Federal Jurisdiction ◽  
Political Turmoil

Historians and legal scholars generally agree that during John Marshall's tenure as chief justice of the United States Supreme Court from 1801 to 1835, the federal judiciary expanded its power to interpret the Constitution and asserted with increasing force its authority to speak on behalf of the Union. This single story of judicial nationalism, however, contains two distinct and largely non-overlapping strands. Historians have tended to focus on the Supreme Court alone, to the exclusion of the lower federal courts, and have largely treated early national controversies over the lower federal courts as outgrowths of the political turmoil that accompanied the emergence of the first party system. Legal scholars in the fields of federal courts and constitutional law, meanwhile, have devoted significant attention to the lower federal courts but have largely neglected the history of how those courts developed beyond the key early moments of the Constitutional Convention and the First Congress.

Recent Developments in Health Law: Constitutional Law: Despite Reservations, the Second Circuit Defers to State Court's Determination That a Preponderance of the Evidence Standard is Constitutional for Recommitment of NRRMDD Defendants – Ernst J. v. Stonea

2006 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 826-828
Author(s):  
Erika Wilkinson
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New York ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Mental Disease ◽  
The United States ◽  
Fourteenth Amendment ◽  
District Court ◽  
Habeas Corpus ◽  
Equal Protection Clause ◽  
Court Of Appeals

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently upheld United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York Judge's denial of petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus. The Court held that it was not objectively unreasonable for the Appellate Division to conclude, in light of clearly established federal law as expressed by the Supreme Court of the United States, that a New York statute providing for the recommitment of specific defendants who plead not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect (NRRMDD) under a mere “preponderance of the evidence” standard does not violate either due process or the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Appeals Court Rejects Federal Jurisdiction over Chiropractors Challenge to Medicare Coverage – Am. Chiropractic Ass'n, Inc. v. Leavitt

2006 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 472-474 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carmen E. Lewis
Keyword(s):  
Health Maintenance Organization ◽  
The United States ◽  
Disabled Persons ◽  
District Court ◽  
Medicare Beneficiaries ◽  
Health Maintenance ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
Medicare Program ◽  
Federal Jurisdiction ◽  
Appeals Court

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (“Appeals Court”) held that the district court did not have jurisdiction over the American Chiropractor's Association's (“ACA”) federal question claims brought under the Medicare Act, despite affirming the ACA's prudential standing to pursue its claims. The Appeals Court reversed the lower court's decision allowing a doctor of medicine or osteopathy to perform manual manipulations of the spine on Medicare beneficiaries to correct a subluxation.The Medicare program “subsidizes medical insurance for elderly and disabled persons.” An enrollee selects a physician or obtains medical services through a managed-care provider, such as a health maintenance organization (“HMO”).

Apportionment of the New York State Legislature

1961 ◽  
Vol 55 (4) ◽  
pp. 870-881 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruth C. Silva
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Due Process ◽  
New York State ◽  
State Legislature ◽  
Fourteenth Amendment ◽  
The State ◽  
District Court ◽  
Federal Constitution ◽  
Southern District ◽  
Federal Jurisdiction

[What follows below is the substance of a document Miss Silva prepared, which was filed on June 6, 1961, with the U. S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, as an Appendix to the petitioners' complaint in the case of W.M.C.A., Inc. et al. v. Caroline K. Simon, Secretary of the State of New York, et al. (61 Civil No. 1559, 1961). The suit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and alleges that the apportionment and districting provisions of the New York Constitution deny the petitioners and others similarly situated both due process and the equal protection of the laws, contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment of the federal constitution. Miss Silva had been employed in 1959–60 as special consultant on legislative apportionment by the State of New York Temporary Commission on Revision and Simplification of the Constitution, which reproduced in two volumes as Staff Report No. 33 (April, 1960) the study she made for it.Litigation in the federal courts concerning legislative apportionments, from Colegrove v. Green, 328 U.S. 549 (1946) to Baker v. Carr, the Tennessee case pending in the Supreme Court at this writing, has been largely preoccupied with questions of federal jurisdiction. The document below does not touch this issue, but rather is confined to the practical effects of the apportionment and districting provisions of the New York Constitution. Man. Ed.]

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document