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

Case Citations [1] (July 2019 - April 2020)

handle is hein.ali/restfrus4205 and id is 1 raw text is: THE FOREIGN RELATIONS LAW OF THE UNITED STATES 4TH: SELECTED TOPICS IN TREATIES, JURISDICTION, AND SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY PART IV. JURISDICTION, STATE IMMUNITY, AND JUDGMENTS § 401. Categories of Jurisdiction C.A.2, 2019. Cit. and quot. in ftn. Arrestees appealed a conviction by the district court, alleging, inter alia, that the district court erred in finding that the United States had jurisdiction over their ship-which had been seized under suspicion of carrying drugs, while in international waters-because it was not stateless under federal law. This court vacated and dismissed arrestees' indictment, holding that the fact that arrestees failed to orally identify the registration of the vessel or that arrestees were not flying a national flag at the time of their arrest did not establish that the vessel was stateless, because the government's interpretation of federal maritime statutes would have resulted in U.S. extraterritorial prescriptive jurisdiction and been in conflict with international law. The court noted that Restatement Fourth of Foreign Relations Law § 401 distinguished between jurisdiction to prescribe and jurisdiction to adjudicate, and explained that construing the phrase a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in maritime statutes as defining the jurisdiction to adjudicate would improperly expand its meaning beyond the intent of Congress. United States v. Prado, 933 F.3d 121, 133, 136. CHAPTER 1. PRESCRIPTION SUBCHAPTER A. EXERCISE OF PRESCRIPTIVE JURISDICTION BY THE UNITED STATES § 404. Presumption Against Extraterritoriality C.A.2, 2019. Com. (a) and Rptrs' Note 3 cit. in sup. Investment firms, among others, brought an application for discovery against, among others, purchaser of a Spanish bank and purchaser's affiliate based in New York, seeking discovery of documents for use in foreign proceedings adjudicating the forced public sale of the bank. The district court granted in part and denied in part investment firms' application for discovery. This court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in ordering discovery against affiliate, because the courts' authority to order a person to produce documents pursuant to federal statutes was coextensive with its personal jurisdiction over that person. The court rejected purchaser's assertion that the fact that the documents were located abroad barred discovery, because, under Restatement Fourth of Foreign Relations Law § 404, extraterritoriality concepts did not apply to federal laws granting jurisdiction to courts. In re del Valle Ruiz, 939 F.3d 520, 532. COPYRIGHT 02020 By THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE All rights reserved 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