Civil Procedure. Personal Jurisdiction. Eleventh Circuit Holds That Minimum Contacts with the United States Do Not Automatically Confer Jurisdiction over a Defendant Served via a Nationwide Service of Process Statute. Panama v. BCCI Holdings, 119 F.3d 935 (11th Cir. 1997)

1998 ◽  
Vol 111 (5) ◽  
pp. 1359 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Personal Jurisdiction

scholarly journals Proving Chinese Law in the Courts of the United States

Amicus Curiae ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 188-215
Author(s):  
Richard K Wagner
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
English Language ◽  
The United States ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Business Culture ◽  
Republic Of China ◽  
Chinese Law ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Chinese Business ◽  
The Us

The volume of disputes heard by United States (US) courts containing a China element continues to be robust even against a backdrop of political rhetoric concerning an economic ‘de-coupling’ of the US and China. These cross-border disputes often involve Chinese parties and special issues, some of which concern Chinese business culture, but many of which involve interpreting questions of Chinese law. How is proving Chinese law accomplished in these cases and how have US courts performed in interpreting Chinese law? This article first discusses the approach to proving Chinese law in US courts. While expert testimony is often submitted and can be valuable to a US court, the applicable US rule offers no standards by which these opinions are to be judged. And, in the China context, without specific guidance, it can be challenging for a judge, unaccustomed with China or the Chinese legal system to determine which version of the law to believe. Moreover, under the applicable rule, the US court can simply ignore competing Chinese law opinions and conduct its own Chinese law legal research, presumably using English language sources. This can lead to interesting interpretations of Chinese law to say the least. The article anchors its discussion in an examination of those recent cases which have interpreted Article 277 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China. This is the legal provision of Chinese law that can be implicated in certain situations involving cross-border discovery, and there are now numerous Article 277 cases among the reported US decisions. The article analyses Article 277 by placing it within the larger context of Chinese civil procedure and argues that the language used in the provision has a special meaning within Chinese evidence law that has been obscured in those US case decisions interpreting it, leading to erroneous results. The article concludes by offering judges and practitioners some suggestions for interpreting Chinese law in future US cases. Keywords: Chinese law; US courts; Article 277; deposition; cross-border discovery; Hague Evidence Convention; Chinese civil procedure.

7 Immunity, 7.6 Prewitt Enterprises, Inc. v Org. of Petroleum Exporting Countries , 353 F.3d 916 (11th Cir. 2003)

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Boon Kristen
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Member State ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
The United States ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
International Organization ◽  
Domestic Court ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
Foreign Law ◽  
Effective Service

This case addresses effective service of process of an international organization by a non-member state. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit relied upon the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) because the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) did not fall within the purview of the International Organizations Immunities Act (IOIA) and no other applicable treaty existed regarding the treatment of the OPEC in a United States domestic court. The decision’s reliance upon FRCP and application of foreign law resulted in the inability of the plaintiffs to bring a claim against the OPEC without its express consent.

scholarly journals Civil Procedure of Trademark Enforcement in Pakistan: A Comparative Analysis with Malaysia and USA

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 95
Author(s):  
Sohaib Mukhtar ◽  
Zinatul Ashiqin Zainol ◽  
Sufian Jusoh
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
The United States ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
District Court ◽  
Registered Trademark ◽  
Goods And Services ◽  
Civil Suit ◽  
Prompt Action

<em>Civil procedure of trademark enforcement runs in Pakistan under Trade Marks Ordinance 2001, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and Specific Relief Act 1877. Trademark is one of the components of Intellectual Property Law, it is a mark, name, sign, smell or a sound which distinguishes goods and services of one undertaking from goods and services of other undertakings. It is required to be distinctiveness and non-descriptive, it losses its distinctiveness when owner of registered trademark does not take prompt action against its infringement. The registered trademark owner may file civil suit against infringement of his registered trademark before the concerned District Court of Law for claiming damages and obtaining injunctions. The Trademark Registry works under Intellectual Property Organization of Pakistan (IPO-Pakistan) for registration and protection of trademarks in Pakistan. Similarly, Intellectual Property Corporation of Malaysia (MyIPO) is empowered agency of trademark registration and its protection in Malaysia. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is responsible for registration and protection of trademarks in United States of America (USA). Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement) is the only International Treaty which contains exhaustive provisions on trademark enforcement includes civil procedure, administrative procedure, criminal procedure, provisional and border measures. Important civil procedure of trademark enforcement issues need to be clarified in trademark law of Pakistan includes trademark infringement, trademark dilution and rectification of trademark register. This article is comparative analysis of civil procedure of trademark enforcement in Pakistan, Malaysia and USA.</em>

scholarly journals SIDE-EFFECTS OF THE GROWING TREND TOWARDS THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF MEDIATION

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 187-221
Author(s):  
Humberto Dalla Pinho
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Alternative Dispute Resolution ◽  
Common Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Mortgage Crisis ◽  
And Diffusion

For some time, Europe, Brazil and the United States have been suffering from the systemic inefficiency of their Courts, with a significant impact on the guarantee of access to justice for their citizens, making alternative dispute resolution (A.D.R.) a constant presence in both civil and common law systems of jurisdiction. The upshot has been the institutionalization of ADRs, taking the form of a routine presence in codes of civil procedure, while their practice is connected to the courts. However, both institutionalization and the obligation to take part in mediation programs before or after starting the suit are exceptional measures, which must be adopted with caution. The experience of the European Union with its Directive, the Brazilian experience of inserting mediation into the project for the new Code of Civil Procedure and the use of mediation to overcome the conflicts arising from the serious mortgage crisis in the U.S.A. will be analyzed in this article, seeking to demonstrate that the progress and diffusion of ADRs does not necessarily entail a breach with their underlying foundation, and particularly with regard to mediation, the loss of its identity, for it to be inserted into the context of access to justice.

Rules for Courts: The Role of Lawyers, Judges, Professors and Government

1978 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 459-473
Author(s):  
Jack B. Weinstein
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
The United States ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Criminal Trials ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Independent Judiciary ◽  
The Supreme Court

This discussion covers some methods and institutions for changing procedures in the courts. More particularly, I refer to procedures for conducting litigations in courts of general jurisdiction, that is to say, civil procedure, criminal procedure and evidence.Since criminal procedure and evidence are controlled here by statutes, I realize that when the terms “rules” or “regulations” are used you would normally think only of civil procedure. I use the term “rules” in a broader sense since in federal courts in the United States, most procedure governing civil and criminal trials and appeals, including evidence, stems from rules promulgated by the Supreme Court of the United States, subject to modification by Congress.I shall describe briefly the history and present situation in the United States, making some reference to the British method, touch on the Israeli method, and then draw some general conclusions, raising some questions about the Israeli pattern as I understand it. These countries are comparable since each has a strong, independent judiciary and a tradition of freedom and the rule of law.

Weltover, Inc. v. Republic Of Argentina

1991 ◽  
Vol 85 (3) ◽  
pp. 560-564
Author(s):  
Joseph D. Pizzurro
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New York ◽  
Direct Effect ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
Due Process ◽  
The United States ◽  
District Court ◽  
Forum Non Conveniens ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Personal Jurisdiction

Plaintiffs, two Panamanian corporations and a Swiss bank, brought an action against the Republic of Argentina and Banco Central de la República Argentina (Banco Central) for breach of obligations arising out of the issuance of certain bonds. The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and lack of personal jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (28 U.S.C. §§1602-1611 (1988)) (FSIA). In the alternative, defendants moved for dismissal under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The district court denied the motions and held that: (1) the acts of the defendants in issuing, and breaching the payment obligations under, certain bonds were commercial, and the failure to pay on those bonds, which contemplated payment in New York, constituted a direct effect in the United States even though the plaintiffs were non-U.S. entities; (2) the aggregate of the defendants’ contacts with the United States, together with the promise to pay the plaintiffs in New York, satisfied the minimum contacts requirement under the due process clause; and (3) the defendants had not made a sufficient showing to justify a dismissal of the case on the grounds of forum non conveniens.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document