About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

Case Citations [1] (July 2021 - April 2022)

handle is hein.ali/resfrlus0049 and id is 1 raw text is: FOREIGN RELATIONS LAW OF THE UNITED STATES 2D PART I. JURISDICTION CHAPTER 3. RESOLUTION AND AVOIDANCE OF CONFLICTS OF JURISDICTION TOPIC 1. CONFLICTS ARISING FROM EXISTENCE OF CONCURRENT JURISDICTION TO PRESCRIBE AND ENFORCE TITLE C. ACTS OF FOREIGN STATES: LAW OF UNITED STATES § 43. Act of Foreign State Affecting Interests Outside its Territory Del.Ch.2019. Cit. in ftn. Former members of the board of directors of U.S. entities directly or indirectly owned by Venezuela sued current members, seeking a declaration that plaintiffs comprised the rightful board of directors of the entities, because the interim president of Venezuela, who appointed defendants, was not the sovereign government. This court converted the parties' cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings into cross-motions for summary judgment, holding, inter alia, that it accepted the interim president's actions as valid under the act-of-state doctrine. The court noted that federal law under Restatement Second of Foreign Relations Law § 43 performed a two-step analysis in determining whether a state action affecting extraterritorial property was entitled to validity under the act-of-state doctrine, but Restatement Third of Foreign Relations Law § 443 eliminated the second step of examining whether the official action conformed to U.S. laws and policy. Jimenez v. Palacios, 250 A.3d 814, 841. CHAPTER 4. IMMUNITIES FROM JURISDICTION TOPIC 2. IMMUNITIES OF FOREIGN STATE § 66. Applicability of Immunity of Foreign State C.A.D.C.2021. Subsec. (f) cit. in sup., cit. and quot. in case and in amicus brief cit. and quot. in sup. Business owner and company sued U.S. public-relations contractors who were hired by Qatar, alleging that defendants illegally hacked into company's servers in response to plaintiffs' criticism of the government of Qatar. The district court, among other things, rejected defendants' defense of foreign- official immunity. This court affirmed, holding that defendants failed to show that they acted on the orders of Qatar or that Qatar formally suggested immunity such that they were entitled to foreign- official immunity against plaintiffs' claims. The court questioned whether Restatement Second of Foreign Relations Law § 66(f) correctly articulated the federal standard for foreign-official immunity, and observed that, even if it applied § 66 here, defendants failed to show that exercising jurisdiction COPYRIGHT ©2022 By THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE All rights reserved A -I-I Printed in the United States of America For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most