Virtual Countries, Inc. v. Republic of South Africa’s Empirical Analysis
300 F.3d 230 · 2002
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 74 later decisions — most recently February 2025 · most notably Kilburn v. Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (2004), Scherer v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States (2003)
26 federal appellate · 4 district ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1127 (§ 45 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 28 U.S.C. § 1330 (§ 2 of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976) · 28 U.S.C. § 1605 (§ 4 of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976)
Relies on Doerr v. Doerr · Truong Dinh Hung v. United States · Republic of Argentina v. Weltover, Inc. · Saudi Arabia v. Nelson · Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Schoonejongen
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) in which the foreign state has waived its immunity either explicitly or by implication, notwithstanding any withdrawal of the waiver which the foreign state may purport to effect except in accordance with the terms of the waiver [hereinafter, “waiver exception”]; [or] (2) in which the action is based [a] upon a commercial activity carried on in the United States by the foreign state; or [b] upon an act performed in the United States in connection with a commercial activity of the foreign state elsewhere; or [c] upon an act outside the territory of the United States in connection with a commercial activity of the foreign state elsewhere and that act causes a direct effect in the United States [hereinafter, “commercial-activity exception”][.]”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“For a defendant foreign state to be amenable to jurisdiction under the third clause, the lawsuit for which jurisdiction is sought must be (1) `based ... upon an act outside the territory of the United States'; (2) `that was taken in connection with a commercial activity of [the foreign state] outside this country'; and (3) `that caused a direct effect in the United States.'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“original jurisdiction without regard to amount in controversy of any nonjury civil action against a foreign state ... as to any claim for relief in personam with respect to which the foreign state is not entitled to immunity either under sections 1605-1607 of this title or under any applicable international agreement.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.