Stephens v. National Distillers & Chemical Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
69 F.3d 1226 · 1995
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation (2010), Lander v. Hartford Life & Annuity Insurance (2001)
15 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1012 (§ 2 of the McCarran-Ferguson Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1330 (§ 2 of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976) · 28 U.S.C. § 1404 · 28 U.S.C. § 1441 · 28 U.S.C. § 1602 (§ 4 of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance v. United States · Verlinden B. v. v. Central Bank of Nigeria · Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp. · United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Ass'n · Securities & Exchange Commission v. National Securities, Inc.
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he property of a foreign state shall be immune from attachment arrest and execution except as provided in sections 1610 and 1611 of this chapter.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“it would force foreign [insurers] to place some of their assets in the hands of the United States courts for an indefinite period. During that time, the [insurers] would have no access to those assets. All this is precisely the same result that would obtain if the foreign [insurer's] assets were formally attached.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“"The FSIA embodies a strong public policy concern of the United States and more specifically a foreign policy concern. As stated in Stephens [v. Nat’l Distillers and Chemical Corp., 69 F.3d 1226, 1232-33 (2d Cir.1995)] (quoting Verlinden B.V. v. Central Bank of Nigeria, 461 U.S. 480, 493 , 103 S.Ct. 1962 , 76 L.Ed.2d 81 (1983)): The FSIA reflects an equally important national concern [as compared to civil rights] — foreign policy. As the Supreme Court has noted: By reason of its authority over foreign commerce and foreign relations, Congress has the undisputed power to decide, as a matter of federal law, whether and under what circumstances foreign nations should be amenable to suit in the United States. Actions against foreign sovereigns in our courts raise sensitive issues concerning the foreign relations of the United States.””
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.