Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T02:24:40.100Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Foremost-Mckesson, Inc. v. Islamic Republic of Iran

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

George Kahale III
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
International Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 84 , Issue 4 , October 1990 , pp. 922 - 926
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 46 Fed. Reg. 14,111 (1981). While claims against Iran were suspended, the Executive Order did not divest the courts of jurisdiction. Dames & Moore v. Regan, 453 U.S. 654 (1981).

2 Foremost Tehran, Inc. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 10 Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal Rep. 228 (1985 III).

3 Pub. L. No. 94-583, 90 Stat. 2891 (1976) (codified at 28 U.S.C. §§1330, 1332(a)(2)–(4), 1391(f), 1441(d), 1602–1611 (1988)).

4 28 U.S.C. §1605(a)(1)–(2).

5 28 U.S.C. §1330(a).

6 28 U.S.C. §§1330(b), 1608.

7 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(1); H.R. Rep. No. 1487, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 18 (1976) [hereinafter House Report], reprinted in [1976] U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 6604, 6617.

8 See, e.g., Frolova v. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, 761 F.2d 370 (7th Cir. 1985); Canadian Overseas Ores Ltd. v. Compania de Acero del Pacifico, 727 F.2d 274 (2d Cir. 1984).

9 The Executive Order, supra note 1, permitted the filing of claims in federal court for such purposes.

10 Aug. 15, 1955, 8 UST 899, TIAS No. 3853, 284 UNTS 93.

11 28 U.S.C. §1604.

12 See Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp., 109 S.Ct. 683 (1989).

13 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(2).

14 28 U.S.C. § 1603(d).

15 Id.

16 See Victory Transp. Inc. v. Comisaria General de Abastecimientos y Transportes, 336 F.2d 354 (2d Cir. 1964), cert. denied, 381 U.S. 934 (1965).

17 See, e.g., Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 376 U.S. 398 (1964); Hunt v. Mobil Oil Corp., 550 F.2d 68 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 984 (1977).

18 See Callejo v. Bancomer S.A., 764 F.2d 1101 (5th Cir. 1985); Texas Trading & Milling Corp. v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, 647 F.2d 300 (2d Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1148 (1982).

19 See Restatement (Second) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States §18 (1965).

20 International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945). According to the House Report, the contacts requirements built into the immunity exceptions themselves ensure that the necessary contacts with the United States will exist before U.S. courts exercise jurisdiction. House Report, supra note 7, at 13–14.

21 462 U.S. 611 (1983).

22 28 U.S.C. § 1603(a).

23 28 U.S.C. § 1603(a)–(b). The impact of the expansive definition of “foreign state” is significantly offset later in the statute by the denial of immunity in commercial cases having the requisite jurisdictional nexus with the United States, whether the defendant be the state itself or a corporate entity owned by the state.

24 See House Report, supra note 7, at 12, 29–30.

25 Id. at 29–30.