Search for: "United States v. General Petroleum Corporation"
Results 61 - 80
of 257
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Sep 2009, 5:00 pm
Obama, President of the United States, et al. [read post]
25 Apr 2018, 11:01 am
Royal Dutch Petroleum—which excluded corporate liability under the ATS—that the ATS was “not dead yet. [read post]
19 Apr 2013, 8:30 am
Royal Dutch Petroleum. [read post]
8 Jul 2010, 7:22 am
(Review of Ian Bremmer, The End of the Free Market: Who Wins the War Between States and Corporations? [read post]
14 Aug 2012, 7:52 pm
In Filartiga, the U.S. brief to the Second Circuit argued that “abstention is generally appropriate … when the parties and the conduct alleged in the complaint have as little contact with the United States as they have here. [read post]
20 Jun 2011, 6:45 pm
2011 will surely go down as the Year of the Class Action in the Supreme Court of the United States. [read post]
18 Apr 2013, 10:05 am
The same general principle also prohibits states from imposing punitive damages on conduct that took place solely in other states. [read post]
26 Jul 2024, 6:05 am
In Kiobel v. [read post]
18 Apr 2014, 5:00 am
Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 133 S. [read post]
4 Dec 2019, 8:29 pm
She cited some cases about corporate responsibility in war crimes, such as Khulumani (United States), Sanader (Croatia), Kiobel v. [read post]
26 Aug 2014, 10:32 am
We argued that the United States Supreme Court has held that the citizenship of a limited partnership for purposes of diversity jurisdiction is determined according to the citizenship of its limited and general partners, citing Carden v. [read post]
24 Jul 2012, 7:53 am
And contrary to some commentators, the 1790 criminal piracy statute at issue in United States v. [read post]
23 Mar 2012, 8:58 am
TITLE V–GEOSPATIAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT Sec. 501. [read post]
26 Jul 2012, 2:20 pm
Several of the commentators have repeatedly stated that the ATS extended universal jurisdiction (and corporate liability) to piracy. [read post]
7 May 2018, 4:00 am
Yet surely the United States should take a stand against corporate involvement in human rights violations by sanctioning firms that profit through abuse. [read post]
3 Jul 2013, 10:18 am
In Kiobel, the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissing a complaint filed under the ATS. [read post]
10 Jul 2012, 8:15 am
For example, in United States v. [read post]
7 Mar 2012, 7:09 am
But in that case the only place they could sue was in the United States. [read post]
18 Jul 2012, 10:12 am
Alvarez-Machain, which involved the extraterritorial actions of a non-citizen agent of the U.S. government – again, that is well within the purposes of the ATS and entirely distinct from corporations with only tenuous connections to the United States. [read post]
28 Feb 2018, 4:30 am
The majority opinion, after 14 pages of opining how the ATS does not apply to human rights violations occurring outside the United States, added: “[o]n these facts, all the relevant conduct took place outside the United States. [read post]
