Walters v. Industrial’s Empirical Analysis
651 F.3d 280 · 2011
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 6 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1330 (§ 2 of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976) · 28 U.S.C. § 1602 (§ 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. § 1608 (§ 4 of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976) · 28 U.S.C. § 1609 (§ 4 of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976) · 28 U.S.C. § 1610 (§ 4 of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976) · 28 U.S.C. § 1962
Relies on Allen v. Wright · Verlinden B. v. v. Central Bank of Nigeria · First National City Bank v. Banco Para El Comercio Exterior De Cuba · Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc. v. Republic of Cuba · John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States
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.
“where 'the facts supporting the statute of limitations defense are set forth in the papers plaintiff[s] [themselves] submitted,'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Although the FSIA’s legislative history suggests that jurisdictional immunity is “an affirmative defense which must be specially pleaded” by the foreign sovereign, H.R. Rep. No. 94-1487, at 17, 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6604, 6616 (1976), the Supreme Court has stated that because § 1330(a) “subject matter jurisdiction turns on the existence of an exception to foreign sovereign immunity, .,, even if the foreign state does not enter an appearance to assert an immunity defense, a District Court still must determine that immunity is unavailable under the” FSIA, Verlinden B.V. v. Cent. Bank of Nigeria, 461 U.S. 480 , 493 n. 20, 103 S.Ct. 1962 , 76 L.Ed.2d 81 (1983). This requirement is consistent with the courts’ “independent obligation to consider the presence or absence of subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte. ” College Standard Magazine v. Student Ass’n of State Univ. of N.Y. at Albany, 610 F.3d 33, 35 (2d Cir.2010) (internal quotation marks omitted).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“any property in the United States of an agency or instrumentality of a foreign state engaged in commercial activity in the United States shall not be immune from attachment in aid of execution, or from execution, upon a judgment entered by a court of the United States or of a State after the effective date of this Act, if (1) the agency or instrumentality has waived its immunity from attachment in aid of execution or from execution either explicitly or implicitly, notwithstanding any withdrawal of the waiver the agency or instrumentality may purport to effect except in accordance with the terms of the waiver.”
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.