Search for: "Underhill v. Hernandez" Results 1 - 8 of 8
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
6 Mar 2010, 12:45 pm by Evan Criddle
Hernandez (1897) to W S Kirkpatrick Co., Inc. v. [read post]
14 Aug 2012, 7:52 pm by John Bellinger
We point out, inter alia, that extraterritorial application of the ATS in most cases violates the Court’s longstanding proscription (first enunciated in 1897 in Underhill v Hernandez) against allowing U.S. courts to “sit in judgment on the acts of the government of another, done within its own territory.”  [read post]
9 Apr 2010, 7:46 pm by Perry Herzfeld
This was said to infringe the act of state doctrine, as explained in decisions such as that of the United States Supreme Court in Underhill v Hernandez 168 US 250 (1897) and the House of Lords in Buttes Gas and Oil Co v Hammer [1982] AC 888. [read post]
17 Jul 2012, 6:50 am by Tobias Thienel
This doctrine holds,in the broadest outline, that English (like U.S.) courts 'will not sit in judgment on the acts of the government of another done within its own territory' (Underhill v Hernandez, 168 U.S. 250, 252 (1897)) or 'will not adjudicate upon the transactions of foreign sovereign states' (Buttes Gas Oil Co v Hammer (No 3) [1982] AC 888, 931G). [read post]
7 Nov 2013, 10:22 am by Ken White
I waited to write about it until I could get a copy of the search warrant affidavit — helpfully provided by my friend Kevin Underhill of the absolutely essential legal blog Lowering the Bar — so that I could address this question: what quantum of proof is required in New Mexico for the police and compliant doctors to rape and torture a man? [read post]