Second Circuit Overturns $655 Million Jury Verdict Against Palestine Liberation Organization and Palestinian Authority

2017 ◽  
Vol 111 (2) ◽  
pp. 504-509
Keyword(s):  
The United States ◽  
United States Government ◽  
Terrorist Attacks ◽  
District Court ◽  
Palestinian Authority ◽  
Palestine Liberation Organization ◽  
Jury Verdict ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
States Government ◽  
Personal Jurisdiction

In its August 2016 decision in Waldman v. Palestine Liberation Organization, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed a $655 million jury verdict against the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Palestinian Authority (PA) for lack of personal jurisdiction. The plaintiffs were individuals whose family members had been killed in terrorist attacks that took place in Jerusalem; defendants were alleged to have coordinated and carried out these attacks. While the United States government took no position on the merits of the dispute, it filed a Statement of Interest in the district court “[o]n the limited issue of setting a bond amount in [the] case.”

U.S. Loyalty Program for Certain un Employees Declared Unconstitutional

1986 ◽  
Vol 80 (4) ◽  
pp. 984-985
Author(s):  
Mark A. Roy
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
The United States ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
United States Government ◽  
District Court ◽  
Executive Order ◽  
Loyalty Program ◽  
States Government

On April 8,1986, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania held, in the case of Hinton v. Devine (Civ. No. 84-1130), that Executive Order No. 10422 of January 9, 1953, as amended, under which the International Organizations Employees Loyalty Program had been instituted, was unconstitutional in that it violated the First Amendment rights of American citizens. The district court also enjoined the United States Government “from publishing, communicating, or advising any third parties, including any international organizations, as to the loyalty of William H. Hinton or any other United States citizen.”

scholarly journals Assessing Student Learning Outcomes in United States Government Courses

2010 ◽  
Vol 43 (01) ◽  
pp. 127-131 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leonard Champney ◽  
Paul Edleman
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Student Learning Outcomes ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Government ◽  
Science Majors ◽  
Student Knowledge ◽  
States Government ◽  
Current Events ◽  
Males And Females

AbstractThis study employs the Solomon Four-Group Design to measure student knowledge of the United States government and student knowledge of current events at the beginning of a U.S. government course and at the end. In both areas, knowledge improves significantly. Regarding knowledge of the U.S. government, both males and females improve at similar rates, those with higher and lower GPAs improve at similar rates, and political science majors improve at similar rates to non-majors. Regarding current events, males and females improve at similar rates. However, those with higher GPAs and political science majors improve more than others.

Security Council

1963 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 226-230
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
International Law ◽  
Security Council ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Government ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The World ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
States Government

The Security Council discussed this question at its 1022nd–1025th meetings, on October 23–25, 1962. It had before it a letter dated October 22, 1962, from the permanent representative of the United States, in which it was stated that the establishment of missile bases in Cuba constituted a grave threat to the peace and security of the world; a letter of the same date from the permanent representative of Cuba, claiming that the United States naval blockade of Cuba constituted an act of war; and a letter also dated October 22 from the deputy permanent representative of the Soviet Union, emphasizing that Soviet assistance to Cuba was exclusively designed to improve Cuba's defensive capacity and that the United States government had committed a provocative act and an unprecedented violation of international law in its blockade.

Herbert Hoover's “Treaty” with Soviet Russia: August 20, 1921

Slavic Review ◽  
1969 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 276-288 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin M. Weissman
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Early Summer ◽  
United States Government ◽  
Private Agency ◽  
Medical Supplies ◽  
States Government ◽  
The Government ◽  
Soviet Russia

In March 1921 Lenin predicted, “If there is a harvest, everybody will hunger a little and the government will be saved. Otherwise, since we cannot take anything from people who do not have the means to satisfy their own hunger, the government will perish.“ By early summer, Russia was in the grip of one of the worst famines in its history. Lenin's gloomy forecast, however, was never put to the test. At almost the last moment, substantial help in the form of food, clothing, and medical supplies arrived from a most unexpected source —U.S. Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover.Hoover undertook the relief of Soviet Russia not as an official representative of the United States government but as the head of a private agency —the American Relief Administration (A.R.A.).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document