Bandes v. Harlow & Jones, Inc.

1988 ◽  
Vol 82 (4) ◽  
pp. 820-824
Author(s):  
Michael R. Calabrese
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
District Court ◽  
Purchase Price ◽  
Steel Company ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
Sandinista Revolution ◽  
Minority Interests ◽  
The U.S

The former majority shareholders of Industria Nacional de Clavos y Alambres de Puas, S.A. (INCA), a large Nicaraguan steel company, sought to recover from Harlow & Jones, Inc. (H & J), a U.S. steel company, the purchase price of a shipment of undelivered steel billets. Following the Sandinista revolution, the Nicaraguan Government had “intervened” in INCA and it, too, demanded the funds that H & J interpleaded into the court. The district court rejected the claim of the Sandinista Government and allocated the funds to the benefit of all parties who held shares in the company prior to the intervention. On cross-appeals by the claimants, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (per Kaufman, J.) affirmed in part and reversed in part, and held: the act of state doctrine does not bar judicial resolution of the dispute over the funds; the actions of the Sandinista Government amounted to a taking without compensation that will not be enforced by the U.S. courts; and the district court’s allocation of pro rata shares for all of the preintervention stockholders, including minority interests, was equitable.

United States v. Stuart

1989 ◽  
Vol 83 (4) ◽  
pp. 918-923
Author(s):  
Daniel M. Price
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Good Faith ◽  
District Court ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Justice Department ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
Canadian Law ◽  
History Of ◽  
The U.S

In response to a request by Canadian tax authorities under the United States-Canada Double Taxation Convention (Convention), the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued summonses to obtain U.S. bank records concerning certain accounts of respondents, Canadian citizens whose Canadian tax liability was under investigation. Respondents sought to quash the summonses, arguing that because under 26 U.S.C. §7609(b) the IRS is prohibited by U.S. law from using its summons authority to obtain information about a U.S. taxpayer once a case is referred to the Justice Department for prosecution, and because the tax investigation of respondents was part of a Canadian criminal investigation, the IRS should be precluded from using its summons authority to honor the Canadian request under the Convention. Unsuccessful in the district court, respondents prevailed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which held that under the “good faith” standard applicable to enforcement of domestic summonses, the IRS may issue a summons pursuant to a Convention request only if it first determines and makes an affirmative statement to the effect that the Canadian investigation has not reached a stage analogous to a Justice Department referral by the IRS. The U.S. Supreme Court (per Brennan, J.) reversed, and held: (1) that if the summons is issued in good faith, it is enforceable regardless of whether the Canadian request is directed toward criminal prosecution under Canadian law; and (2) neither United States law nor anything in the text or the ratification history of the Convention supports the imposition of additional requirements. Justice Kennedy (joined by O’Connor, J.), concurring in part and in the judgment, filed a brief opinion to state his view that it is unnecessary to decide whether Senate preratification materials are authoritative sources for treaty interpretation. Justice Scalia, concurring in the judgment, wrote separately to oppose the use of such materials in treaty construction.

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.

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.

Lee v. Dong-A Ilbo

1989 ◽  
Vol 83 (1) ◽  
pp. 90-94
Author(s):  
Sonya D. Winner
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Korean American ◽  
District Court ◽  
Public Television ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
South Korean ◽  
Official Report ◽  
Foreign Governments ◽  
Summary Judgment

In 1985 two intelligence agencies of the South Korean Government announced that they had successfully disrupted a North Korean spy ring operating in the United States. Their press release, which was widely publicized in the Korean press, named Chang-Sin Lee as a North Korean agent associated with a spy ring at Western Illinois University, where Lee had been a student. The story was picked up and reported in the United States by six Korean-American newspapers and a public television station. When Lee sued for libel, the defendants relied upon the official report privilege, which gives absolute protection to the accurate republication of official government reports. The district court, holding that the privilege applied and that Lee had not overcome it by showing malice, dismissed the case. Plaintiff appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which in a two to one decision reversed (per Ervin, J.) and held: that the official report privilege does not apply to the republication of official reports of foreign governments. Judge Kaufman, sitting by designation, dissented from the majority’s reversal of the district court’s grant of summary judgment.

Recent Developments in Health Law: Civil Procedure: First Circuit Holds it Unreasonable to Hale Hospitals into Foreign Forums Simply for Accepting Out-of-State Patients — Harlow v. Children's Hospital

2006 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 467-469
Author(s):  
Ashley Clare Hague
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
District Court ◽  
State Court ◽  
Medical Procedure ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
Children's Hospital ◽  
Children’S Hospital ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Behavioral Impairments

The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit recently upheld a United States District Court for the District of Maine Judge's decision to dismiss a Maine plaintiff's medical malpractice claim against a Massachusetts hospital defendant for want of personal jurisdiction over the hospital. The Court of Appeals found it unreasonable to hale hospitals into an out-of-state court merely because they accept out-of-state patients.Plaintiff Danielle Harlow is a Maine resident who suffered a stroke at the age of six while undergoing a medical procedure at Children's Hospital of Boston, Massachusetts (“Children's Hospital”). The stroke, allegedly caused by the Hospital's negligence, led to brain damage resulting in partial paralysis and cognitive and behavioral impairments. The procedure was supposed to treat Harlow's rapid heartbeat, a condition related to her Wolff-Parkinson-White Syndrome. Harlow's pediatrician in Maine recommended that she visit Children's Hospital in Boston to treat her arrhythmia.

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.

United States: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Decision in Re: Westinghouse Electric Corporation Uranium Contracts Litigation (Compliance with Discovery Order; Enforcement of Letters Rogatory in Canada)

1978 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 77-92
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
District Court ◽  
Trial Court ◽  
Central Division ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
Westinghouse Electric Corporation ◽  
Westinghouse Electric

Rio Algom Corporation appeals from an order adjudging it, and its president , George R. Albino , to be in will ful and in excusable civil contempt of court for failing to comply with a discovery order of the United States District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division. Rio Algom was ordered to pay into the registry of the court the sum of $10,000, per day, until such time as Rio Algom complied with the order. It was further provided that should Rio Algom fail to pay the ordered fine, the United States Marshal was authorized and directed to enter upon the property of Rio Algom at La Sal, Utah and seize "any and all property of Rio Algom of sufficient value to satisfy the above sums." Our study of the matter leads us to conclude that the trial court erred in holding Rio Algom in contempt and in imposing the severe sanction in connection therewith. We therefore reverse.

Doe v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

1989 ◽  
Vol 83 (3) ◽  
pp. 569-573
Author(s):  
Gregory H. Fox
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
The United States ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
Refugee Status ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
Immigration And Naturalization Service ◽  
Objective Standard ◽  
Chinese Citizen ◽  
The U.S

The plaintiff, a Chinese citizen who entered the United States under a nonimmigrant student visa, appealed from a decision by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to deny his request for asylum. Plaintiff claimed that he had a “well-founded fear of persecution,” the prerequisite to attaining “refugee” status under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (the Act) and implementing regulations promulgated by the INS. He also claimed that the immigration judge had erred by refusing to obtain a second advisory opinion from the Department of State’s Bureau of Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs (BHRHA). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (per Nelson, J.) held that (1) the immigration judge had abused his discretion by not requesting a second advisory opinion from the BHRHA; and (2) the judge had incorrectly applied an objective standard in evaluating plaintiffs asylum request, when credible evidence demonstrated that plaintiff had a subjectively valid fear of persecution if deported to China. The court remanded the case to the immigration judge with instructions to obtain a second opinion from the BHRHA and to consider plaintiffs asylum request on the assumption that he qualified as a “refugee.”

Fraud & Abuse: Fourth Circuit Holds Eleventh Amendment Bars Qui Tam Suit Against State in Federal Court

1999 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 201-202
Author(s):  
Allan Gomes
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
District Court ◽  
False Claims Act ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
Federal Intervention ◽  
Private Citizen ◽  
Northern District ◽  
Eleventh Amendment ◽  
The U.S

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled, in United States u. Texus Tech University, 171 F.3d 279 (5th Cir. 1999), that the Eleventh Amendment bars a private citizen from bringing a qui tam action in federal court against a state, absent federal intervention.Intervenor Carol Foulds was a dermatology resident at the Texas Tech Health Services Center. While a resident, Foulds examined patients, made diagnoses, and prescribed treatments for patients. Foulds alleged that she and other residents performed these medical services without the supervision of staff physicians. Foulds further alleged that, after residents performed these services without physician oversight, staff physicians signed charts and Medicare and Medicaid billing forms certifying that they personally performed or supervised the administration of these services. Foulds estimates approximately 500,000 false claims occurred in a span of ten years.In 1995, Foulds filed a qui tam action with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. As regulated by the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. § 3729(b)(2) (West 1998), the complaint remained under seal.

Antitrust Jurisdiction under Customary International Law

1984 ◽  
Vol 78 (4) ◽  
pp. 783-810 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karl M. Meessen
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
Case Analysis ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
District Court ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
Northern District ◽  
Legal Writing ◽  
The U.S

When, on October 24, 1983, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California handed down its decision in Timberlane Lumber Co. v. Bank of America and denied U.S. jurisdiction out of regard for the Honduran “system of justice,” there may have been some surprise that the case was still pending. The Timberlane decision of 1976 of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which remanded the matter to the district court, had already become a classic, even though it was preceded by the 1968 decision in United States v. First National City Bank on the production of documents located abroad. The Timberlane approach outlined by Judge Choy, under which the exercise of antitrust jurisdiction has to be restrained by a case-by-case analysis of various factors, was widely discussed (and usually praised) in legal writing, and was also followed by federal courts of the Second, Third, Fifth, Ninth and Tenth Circuits.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document