Kato v. Ishihara’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 federal appellate ·

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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(a) A foreign state shall not be immune from the jurisdiction of courts of the United States or of the States in any case ... (2) in which the action is based upon a commercial activity carried on in the United States by the foreign state; or upon an act performed in the United States in connection with a commercial activity of the foreign state elsewhere; or 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!.]”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Garb v. Republic of Poland · NML Capital, Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina

2. “[t]he promotion abroad of the commerce of domestic firms is a basic -- even quintessential -- governmental function.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Merlini v. Canada · Hyunhuy Nam v. Permanent Mission of the Republic of Korea to the United

3. “First, how do the U.A.E.’s own laws define its civil service, and do El-Ha-dad’s job title and duties come within that definition? Second, what was the nature of El-Hadad’s employment relationship with the U.A.E.? Did he have a true contractual arrangement, or is his “contract” claim instead based, as the U.A.E. contends, solely upon the civil service laws of the U.A.E.? Third, what was the nature of El-Ha-dad’s employment relationship when he worked in the U.A.E., and how did his subsequent employment at the Embassy relate to that prior tenure? The U.A.E. contends that El-Hadad was a longtime resident and member of its domestic civil service, who was merely “transferred” to Washington to perform the same functions (governmental audits) he had been performing at home. El-Ha-dad contends, on the other hand, that he quit his position in the U.A.E. and began a “new” job in the United States, “separate from his previous employment.” Fourth, what was the nature of El-Ha-dad’s work? As noted above, Congress indicated that the “employment or engagement of laborers, clerical staff or public relations or marketing agents” would come within the definition of commercial activity. Fifth, what is the relevance of El-Ha-dad’s Egyptian nationality on the facts of this case? Is the U.A.E. a country in which, as the House Report assumed, non-nationals are unlikely to be employed as governmental officers? Or does the U.A.E. often employ non-nationals in governmental positions?”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. El-Hadad v. United Arab Emirates · Hyunhuy Nam v. Permanent Mission of the Republic of Korea to the United