Jean v. Dorélien’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 2 district ·

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

1. ““[T]he committee recognizes that in most instances the initiation of litigation under this legislation will be virtually prima facie evidence that the claimant has exhausted his or her remedies in the jurisdiction in which the torture occwred. The committee believes that courts should approach cases brought under the proposed legislation with this assumption. More specifically, ... [the exhaustion requirement] should be informed by general principles of international law. The procedural practice of international human rights tribunals generally holds that the respondent has the burden of raising the no-nexhaustion of remedies as an affirmative defense and must show that domestic remedies exist that the claimant did not use. Once the defendant makes a showing of remedies abroad which have not been exhausted, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to rebut by showing that the local remedies were ineffective, unobtainable, unduly prolonged, inadequate, or obviously futile. The ultimate burden of proof and persuasion on the issue of exhaustion of remedies, however, lies with the defendant.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Mamani v. Berzaín · Boniface v. Viliena

2. “[The TVPA] provides for a 10-year statute of limitations, but explicitly calls for consideration of all equitable tolling principles in calculating this period with a view toward giving justice to plaintiffs rights. Illustrative, but not exhaustive, of the types of tolling principles which may be applicable include the following. The statute of limitations should be tolled during the time the defendant was absent from the United States or from any jurisdiction in which the same or similar action arising from the same facts may be maintained by the plaintiff, provided that the remedy in that jurisdiction is adequate and available. Excluded also from calculation of the statute of limitations would be the period when a defendant has immunity from suit. The statute of limitations should also be tolled for the period of time in which the plaintiff is imprisoned or otherwise incapacitated. It should also be tolled. where the defendant has concealed his or her whereabouts or the plaintiff has been unable to discover the identity of the offender.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Warfaa v. Ali · Jane W. v. Thomas

3. “[a] court shall decline to hear a [TVPA] claim ... if the claimant has not exhausted adequate and available remedies in the place in which the conduct giving rise to the claim occurred.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Boniface v. Viliena · Mamani v. Berzaín