Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T05:26:00.877Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Randall v. Arabian American Oil Co.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

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
Judicial Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 80 , Issue 3 , July 1986 , pp. 651 - 653
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1986

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 The parties did not dispute that the court had in personam jurisdiction over the defendant.

2 778 F.2d 1146, 1150.

3 Id. at 1151. The parties did not dispute that Saudi Arabian substantive law provided the rule of decision in the case.

4 Id. (citation and footnote omitted).

5 U.S. Const, art. IV, §1. See, e.g., Crider v. Zurich Ins. Co., 380 U.S. 39 (1965); Tennessee Coal, Iron & R.R. Co. v. George, 233 U.S. 354, 360 (1914) (“[A] State cannot create a transitory cause of action and at the same time destroy the right to sue on that transitory cause of action in any court having jurisdiction”).

6 778 F.2d at 1152. In this respect, the court observed that it is left to the law of the forum to determine whether a law is substantive or procedural.

7 Id. at 1153.

8 The court also rejected defendant’s final argument that the act of state doctrine required recognition of the exclusive jurisdiction provision, noting that any concerns “regarding judicial interference with diplomatic relations are not at all implicated in this case.” Id.