Desir v. Ilchert

1988 ◽  
Vol 82 (4) ◽  
pp. 830-832
Author(s):  
Susan Burke
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Social Group ◽  
The United States ◽  
District Court ◽  
Habeas Corpus ◽  
Government Officials ◽  
Political Opinion ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
Northern District

Plaintiff, a Haitian seeking asylum in the United States, filed a petition for habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, to overturn a denial of asylum by both an immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The plaintiff sought asylum under section 101(a)(42)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(42)(A) (1982)) (INA) on the basis of “persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” The district court upheld the BIA decision, which allowed deportation of the plaintiff because the incidents of persecution in Haiti were economically rather than politically motivated. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (per Tang, J.) reversed, holding that the plaintiff had demonstrated persecution based on political opinion by showing a pattern of extortion by government officials, and remanded for a determination of whether the plaintiff would be persecuted upon his return to Haiti.

Recent Developments in Health Law: Constitutional Law: Despite Reservations, the Second Circuit Defers to State Court's Determination That a Preponderance of the Evidence Standard is Constitutional for Recommitment of NRRMDD Defendants – Ernst J. v. Stonea

2006 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 826-828
Author(s):  
Erika Wilkinson
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New York ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Mental Disease ◽  
The United States ◽  
Fourteenth Amendment ◽  
District Court ◽  
Habeas Corpus ◽  
Equal Protection Clause ◽  
Court Of Appeals

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently upheld United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York Judge's denial of petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus. The Court held that it was not objectively unreasonable for the Appellate Division to conclude, in light of clearly established federal law as expressed by the Supreme Court of the United States, that a New York statute providing for the recommitment of specific defendants who plead not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect (NRRMDD) under a mere “preponderance of the evidence” standard does not violate either due process or the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Factor Case and Double Criminality in Extradition

1934 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 274-306 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manley O. Hudson
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Great Britain ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
District Court ◽  
Habeas Corpus ◽  
Circuit Court ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law

The recent decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Factor v. Laubenheimer and Haggard has broken new ground with reference to the interpretation of the extradition treaties between the United States and Great Britain, and it seems to deserve special consideration as a contribution to the law of extradition. Factor's extradition was requested by Great Britain on a charge of receiving certain sums of money, aggregating £458,500, known to have been fraudulently obtained. On the complaint of a British consul, Factor was taken into custody in Illinois, and a United States Commissioner in Illinois issued a warrant for his commitment pending surrender. On a return to a writ of habeas corpus, the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois ordered his discharge from custody, but this order was reversed by the Circuit Court of Appeals. Both the District Court and the Circuit Court of Appeals seem to have regarded extradition as possible only if the offense charged was a crime both by the law of Great Britain and by the law of Illinois; the District Court held that receiving money known to have been fraudulently obtained was not a crime by the law of Illinois, but a majority of the Circuit Court of Appeals, relying chiefly on Kelly v. Griffin, took the contrary view. On certiorari, the Supreme Court held that the offense charged was an extraditable crime even if it is not punishable by the law of Illinois, the opinion being written by Justice Stone. Justice Butler was joined in a vigorous dissenting opinion by Justices Brandeis and Roberts.

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.

United States v. Stuart

1989 ◽  
Vol 83 (4) ◽  
pp. 918-923
Author(s):  
Daniel M. Price
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Good Faith ◽  
District Court ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Justice Department ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
Canadian Law ◽  
History Of ◽  
The U.S

In response to a request by Canadian tax authorities under the United States-Canada Double Taxation Convention (Convention), the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued summonses to obtain U.S. bank records concerning certain accounts of respondents, Canadian citizens whose Canadian tax liability was under investigation. Respondents sought to quash the summonses, arguing that because under 26 U.S.C. §7609(b) the IRS is prohibited by U.S. law from using its summons authority to obtain information about a U.S. taxpayer once a case is referred to the Justice Department for prosecution, and because the tax investigation of respondents was part of a Canadian criminal investigation, the IRS should be precluded from using its summons authority to honor the Canadian request under the Convention. Unsuccessful in the district court, respondents prevailed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which held that under the “good faith” standard applicable to enforcement of domestic summonses, the IRS may issue a summons pursuant to a Convention request only if it first determines and makes an affirmative statement to the effect that the Canadian investigation has not reached a stage analogous to a Justice Department referral by the IRS. The U.S. Supreme Court (per Brennan, J.) reversed, and held: (1) that if the summons is issued in good faith, it is enforceable regardless of whether the Canadian request is directed toward criminal prosecution under Canadian law; and (2) neither United States law nor anything in the text or the ratification history of the Convention supports the imposition of additional requirements. Justice Kennedy (joined by O’Connor, J.), concurring in part and in the judgment, filed a brief opinion to state his view that it is unnecessary to decide whether Senate preratification materials are authoritative sources for treaty interpretation. Justice Scalia, concurring in the judgment, wrote separately to oppose the use of such materials in treaty construction.

Lee v. Dong-A Ilbo

1989 ◽  
Vol 83 (1) ◽  
pp. 90-94
Author(s):  
Sonya D. Winner
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Korean American ◽  
District Court ◽  
Public Television ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
South Korean ◽  
Official Report ◽  
Foreign Governments ◽  
Summary Judgment

In 1985 two intelligence agencies of the South Korean Government announced that they had successfully disrupted a North Korean spy ring operating in the United States. Their press release, which was widely publicized in the Korean press, named Chang-Sin Lee as a North Korean agent associated with a spy ring at Western Illinois University, where Lee had been a student. The story was picked up and reported in the United States by six Korean-American newspapers and a public television station. When Lee sued for libel, the defendants relied upon the official report privilege, which gives absolute protection to the accurate republication of official government reports. The district court, holding that the privilege applied and that Lee had not overcome it by showing malice, dismissed the case. Plaintiff appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which in a two to one decision reversed (per Ervin, J.) and held: that the official report privilege does not apply to the republication of official reports of foreign governments. Judge Kaufman, sitting by designation, dissented from the majority’s reversal of the district court’s grant of summary judgment.

Recent Developments in Health Law: Civil Procedure: First Circuit Holds it Unreasonable to Hale Hospitals into Foreign Forums Simply for Accepting Out-of-State Patients — Harlow v. Children's Hospital

2006 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 467-469
Author(s):  
Ashley Clare Hague
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
District Court ◽  
State Court ◽  
Medical Procedure ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
Children's Hospital ◽  
Children’S Hospital ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Behavioral Impairments

The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit recently upheld a United States District Court for the District of Maine Judge's decision to dismiss a Maine plaintiff's medical malpractice claim against a Massachusetts hospital defendant for want of personal jurisdiction over the hospital. The Court of Appeals found it unreasonable to hale hospitals into an out-of-state court merely because they accept out-of-state patients.Plaintiff Danielle Harlow is a Maine resident who suffered a stroke at the age of six while undergoing a medical procedure at Children's Hospital of Boston, Massachusetts (“Children's Hospital”). The stroke, allegedly caused by the Hospital's negligence, led to brain damage resulting in partial paralysis and cognitive and behavioral impairments. The procedure was supposed to treat Harlow's rapid heartbeat, a condition related to her Wolff-Parkinson-White Syndrome. Harlow's pediatrician in Maine recommended that she visit Children's Hospital in Boston to treat her arrhythmia.

United States: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Decision in Re: Westinghouse Electric Corporation Uranium Contracts Litigation (Compliance with Discovery Order; Enforcement of Letters Rogatory in Canada)

1978 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 77-92
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
District Court ◽  
Trial Court ◽  
Central Division ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
Westinghouse Electric Corporation ◽  
Westinghouse Electric

Rio Algom Corporation appeals from an order adjudging it, and its president , George R. Albino , to be in will ful and in excusable civil contempt of court for failing to comply with a discovery order of the United States District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division. Rio Algom was ordered to pay into the registry of the court the sum of $10,000, per day, until such time as Rio Algom complied with the order. It was further provided that should Rio Algom fail to pay the ordered fine, the United States Marshal was authorized and directed to enter upon the property of Rio Algom at La Sal, Utah and seize "any and all property of Rio Algom of sufficient value to satisfy the above sums." Our study of the matter leads us to conclude that the trial court erred in holding Rio Algom in contempt and in imposing the severe sanction in connection therewith. We therefore reverse.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document