In Re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 3 district ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 2331 (Material Support to Terrorism Prohibition Enhancement Act of 2004) · 18 U.S.C. § 2333 (Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act of 2019) · 18 U.S.C. § 2334 · 18 U.S.C. § 2339 (§ 803 of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001) · 18 U.S.C. § 2339A (§ 120005 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994) · 22 U.S.C. § 287 (United Nations Environment Program Participation Act of 1973)
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Burger King Corporation v. Rudzewicz · Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment · Hishon v. King & Spalding · Helicopteros Nacionales De Colombia, S. A. v. Hall
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A foreign state shall not be immune from the jurisdiction of courts of the United States or of the States in any case ... [not encompassed in the commercial activities exception] in which money damages are sought against a foreign state for personal injury or death, or damage to or loss of property, occurring in the United States and caused by the tortious act or omission of that foreign state or of any official or employee of that foreign state while acting within the scope of his office or employment; except this paragraph shall not apply to— (A) any claim based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function regardless of whether the discretion be abused, or (B) any claim arising out of malicious prosecution, abuse of process, libel, slander, misrepresentation, deceit, or interference with contract rights....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Doe v. Bin Laden“SHC offers undisputed evidence that all decisions regarding the distribution of humanitarian relief funds were within the sole discretion of its Chairman Prince Salman and the advisors he selected. Further, SHC was guided by the Kingdom’s policies regarding Bosnia-Herzegovina in making its funding determinations. Accordingly, SHC’s alleged misuse of funds and/or inadequate record-keeping — even if it resulted in the funds going to terrorists — was the result of a discretionary function and cannot be the basis for overcoming SHC’s immunity.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“). . See In re Terrorist Attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, 349 F.Supp.2d 765, 830 (S.D.N.Y.2005), on reconsideration in part, 392 F.Supp.2d 539 (S.D.N.Y.2005), aff'd, 538 F.3d 71 (2d Cir.2008) (”
1 later decision 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.