West Flagler Associates, LTD., d/b/a/ Magic City Casino, and Bonita-Fort Myers Corporation, d/b/a Bonita Springs Poker Room, Plaintiffs,av.DEB Haaland, in her official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior and United States Department of the Interior, Defendants.U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Case No. 1:21-cv-02192-DLF Plaintiffs' Motion and Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative, A Preliminary Injunction Filed September 21, 2021

2021 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
District Of Columbia ◽  
The United States ◽  
District Court ◽  
United States Department ◽  
States Department ◽  
Preliminary Injunction ◽  
Summary Judgment

Photovoltaics in the United States Department of Defense

1996 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. F. Hoelscher ◽  
R. Ducey ◽  
G. D. Smith ◽  
L. W. Strother ◽  
C. Combs
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Department Of Defense ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Department ◽  
States Department

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document