Search for: "U.S. v. Sosa"
Results 181 - 200
of 203
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Mar 2012, 9:53 pm
For a couple of reasons, the presumption against extraterritoriality doesn’t apply neatly to ATS claims, as the Ninth and DC Circuits said in their 2011 decisions in Sarei v Rio Tinto and Doe VIII v Exxon Mobil. [read post]
27 Oct 2022, 5:55 am
Starting in 2004 with the decision in Sosa v. [read post]
25 Jun 2008, 6:15 pm
U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, June 19, 2008 U.S. v. [read post]
26 Aug 2009, 4:32 pm
The 9th U.S. [read post]
27 Jul 2017, 7:11 am
” Thus, as the Supreme Court explained in Sosa v. [read post]
3 Nov 2011, 6:00 am
by John Dehn There is much to be analyzed in the Ninth Circuit’s en banc decision in Sarei v. [read post]
11 Apr 2017, 3:01 pm
The course begins with issues of definitions and of variations in approaches to legal and other governance mechanisms in the U.S. and among major commercial jurisdictions. [read post]
1 Feb 2010, 4:00 am
More significantly, Professor Moore argues that Medellín manifests the same separation of powers perspective as that reflected in the Court’s 2004 decision in Sosa v. [read post]
2 Feb 2009, 3:39 am
Supreme Court case construing the act, Sosa v. [read post]
21 Mar 2007, 12:46 am
": Patricia McNerney, U.S. [read post]
19 Apr 2010, 4:45 pm
From Serra v. [read post]
9 Jun 2016, 5:30 am
Atlanta, GA Julio Lopez-De Dips, A206 011 402 (BIA Mar. 1, 2016) (2016 WL 1084489) - The BIA remanded the matter to the IJ for reconsideration of the respondent’s motion to continue in light of the respondent’s marriage to a U.S. citizen and the U.S. citizen spouse’s plans to file an I-130 for respondent. [read post]
9 Jun 2016, 5:30 am
Atlanta, GA Julio Lopez-De Dips, A206 011 402 (BIA Mar. 1, 2016) (2016 WL 1084489) - The BIA remanded the matter to the IJ for reconsideration of the respondent’s motion to continue in light of the respondent’s marriage to a U.S. citizen and the U.S. citizen spouse’s plans to file an I-130 for respondent. [read post]
27 Jul 2014, 5:53 pm
” Somewhat surprisingly, the panel went further to question whether the alleged torture by a non-state actor would fall within the requirements for actionable ATS offenses set forth in the Supreme Court’s Sosa decision. [read post]
9 Aug 2011, 11:21 am
The scenario, then, was reasonably similar to that in the famous Alvarez-Machain case (see Sosa v Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004)). [read post]
21 Oct 2011, 6:35 am
V. [read post]
14 Jun 2011, 7:01 am
In AT&T Mobility v. [read post]
3 Apr 2023, 5:45 am
The U.S. [read post]
7 Aug 2012, 4:21 pm
Virginia, the U.S. [read post]
30 Nov 2009, 9:53 am
” [7] The first case that held promise that corporation might be held liable under the ATCA was Doe v Unocal, but this corporation also settled with the plaintiffs before it could be heard before the full en banc court that was requested by judges in the Ninth Circuit. [read post]
