Foreign Corporations. Jurisdiction of Federal Courts. Power to Interfere with Internal Affairs

1933 ◽  
Vol 19 (5) ◽  
pp. 504
Author(s):  
J. K.
Keyword(s):  
Federal Courts ◽  
Internal Affairs ◽  
Foreign Corporations

Home Truths about Prison Overcrowding

1985 ◽  
Vol 478 (1) ◽  
pp. 73-85 ◽  
Author(s):  
ALONZO COBB
Keyword(s):  
Status Quo ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Physical Conditions ◽  
Minimum Standards ◽  
Court Action ◽  
Prison Overcrowding ◽  
The Status ◽  
Internal Affairs

The majority of prisoners the author has spoken with are not very concerned about prison overcrowding; they are concerned only with benefiting their own immediate conditions. They only talk about overcrowding and leave a minority of inmates to file the petitions and writs to get rid of overcrowded conditions. In this article, the physical conditions of overcrowded prisons are detailed and strategies are outlined whereby litigious prisoners may protect their own possessions vis-à-vis the prison authorities. For their part, some prison administrators prefer the status quo and are not too keen about inmates meddling in internal affairs. The federal courts in Georgia have mandated that overcrowded prisons come up to minimum standards. Such court action motivates prisoners to work for more humane prisons.

Pseudo-Foreign Corporations and the "Internal Affairs" Rule

1960 ◽  
Vol 1960 (3) ◽  
pp. 477
Keyword(s):  
Internal Affairs ◽  
Foreign Corporations

Foreign Corporations. Regulation of Internal Affairs

1899 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 269
Keyword(s):  
Internal Affairs ◽  
Foreign Corporations

7 International Human Rights Litigation

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bradley Curtis A
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Human Rights Abuses ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
International Human ◽  
Victim Protection ◽  
Foreign Corporations ◽  
Alien Tort Statute

This chapter focuses on litigation under the Alien Tort Statute, which provides for jurisdiction over suits brought by aliens for torts in violation of international law. The chapter begins by exploring Congress’s likely intent in enacting the Statute in 1789, and how the Statute may have related to Article III of the Constitution (concerning the powers of the federal courts). The chapter then describes how the Statute received little attention until the Filartiga decision in 1980, which allowed for it to be used by aliens to sue other aliens for human rights abuses committed abroad. The chapter proceeds to explore a variety of doctrinal issues relating to this human rights litigation, including the source of the cause of action, the standards for bringing a claim, and the ability to sue corporations. The chapter also considers the contours of the Torture Victim Protection Act, which Congress enacted in 1992 to facilitate certain human rights claims. The chapter then discusses limitations on Alien Tort Statute litigation imposed by the Supreme Court in its 2004 decision in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, as well as the rise of suits brought against corporate defendants brought under the Statute. The chapter concludes by discussing the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, in which the Court substantially curtailed the territorial reach of claims that could be brought under the Statute, and the Court’s 2018 decision in Jesner v. Arab Bank, in which the Court disallowed suits under the Statute against foreign corporations.

Corporations. Foreign Corporations. Jurisdiction over Internal Affairs

1911 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 319 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Internal Affairs ◽  
Foreign Corporations
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document