462 F. Supp. 2d 457 - Weininger v. Castro’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 5 district ·
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 6701 (§ 104 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999)) · 22 U.S.C. § 2371 · 28 U.S.C. § 1330 (§ 2 of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976) · 28 U.S.C. § 1335 · 28 U.S.C. § 1603 (§ 4 of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976) · 28 U.S.C. § 1604 (§ 4 of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976) · 28 U.S.C. § 1605 (§ 4 of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976) · 28 U.S.C. § 1606 (§ 4 of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976)
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. · Migra v. Warren City School District Board of Education · Boddie v. Connecticut · Shaffer v. Heitner
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) IN GENERAL — Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and except as provided in subsection (b) [of this note], in every case in which a person has obtained a judgment against a terrorist party on a claim based upon an act of terrorism, or for which a terrorist party is not immune under section 1605(a)(7) of Title 28, United States Code, the blocked assets of that terrorist party (including the blocked assets of any agency or instrumentality of that terrorist party) shall be subject to execution or attachment in aid of execution in order to satisfy such judgment to the extent of any compensatory damages for which such terrorist party has been adjudged liable.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(g) Property in Certain Actions.— (1) In general. — Subject to paragraph (3), the property of a foreign state against which a judgment is entered under section 1605A, and the property of an agency or instrumentality of such a state, including property that is a separate juridical entity or is an interest held directly or indirectly in a separate juridical entity, is subject to attachment in aid of execution, and execution, upon that judgment as provided in this section, regardless of— (A) the level of economic control over the property by the government of the foreign state; (B) whether the profits of the property go to that government; (C) the degree to which officials of that government manage the property or otherwise control its daily affairs; (D) whether that government is the sole beneficiary in interest of the property; or (E) whether establishing the property as a separate entity would entitle the foreign state to benefits in United States courts while avoiding its obligations. (2) United states sovereign immunity inapplicable. — Any property of a foreign state, or agency or instrumentality of a foreign state, to which paragraph (1) applies shall not be immune from attachment in aid of execution, or execution, upon a judgment entered under section 1605A because the property is regulated by the United States Government by reason of action taken against that foreign state under the [TWEA] or the [IEEPA], (3) Third-party joint property holders. — Nothing in this subsecti”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Act of terrorism” is defined [in TRIA] by reference to other statutes, and Plaintiffs suggest that they also have judgments based on an act of terrorism as defined in those statutes. However, if a foreign sovereign was immune from judgment under § 1605(a)(7), reading “a claim based on an act of terrorism” to include those foreign sovereigns would defeat that very immunity and create a whole new category of jurisdiction over otherwise immune sovereigns. This Court has before it no indication that this application reflects Congress’s intent in passing TRIA, an execution statute. It is possible that such language was designed to refer to terrorist acts by non-state actors, and not to state sponsors of terrorism such as Cuba. Alternatively, the reference to “claims based upon an act of terrorism” may, as [the garnishee] suggests, be meant to authorize execution where the jurisdictional basis for the judgment to be enforced is a subsection of 28 U.S.C. § 1605 (a) other than 1605(a)(7).”
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.