About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

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

handle is hein.ali/restfrus4203 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 nearly 3,000 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:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

profiles profiles most