Boureslan v. Aramco’s Empirical Analysis
857 F.2d 1014 · 1988
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently June 2023 · most notably Den Norske Stats Oljeselskap As v. HeereMac Vof (2001), United States v. Kay (2004)
21 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
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 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 702 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 717 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 703 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Skidmore v. Swift & Co. · Consumer Product Safety Commission v. GTE Sylvania, Inc. · Bolling v. Sharpe · Yick Wo v. Hopkins · Reiter v. Sonotone Corp.
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) the link of the activity to the territory of the regulating state, i.e., the extent to which the activity takes place within the territory, or has substantial, direct, and foreseeable effect upon or in the territory; (b) the connections, such as nationality, residence, or economic activity, between the regulating state and the person principally responsible for the activity to be regulated, or between that state and those whom the regulation is designed to protect; (c) the character of the activity to be regulated, the importance of regulation to the regulating state, the extent to which other states regulate such activities, and the degree to which the desirability of such regulation is generally accepted. (d) the existence of justified expectations that might be protected or hurt by the regulation; (e) the importance of the regulation to the international political, legal, or economic system; (f) the extent to which the regulation is consistent with the traditions of the international system; (g) the extent to which another state may have an interest in regulating the activity; and (h) the likelihood of conflict with regulation by another state.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[n]o court has applied the reasonableness test as part of the threshold inquiry to determine whether a statute may, as a general matter, be applied extraterritorially. The Restatement, however, notes that the reasonableness test may serve the same purpose as the traditional tests for deciding whether a statute may be applied extraterritorially.” Boureslan, 857 F.2d at 1025 (King, J., dissenting) (citations omitted). Since Judge Ring’s dissent, the Fifth Circuit has made no mention of the Restatement factors in any published or unpublished opinion. 10 . See Convention art. 34 (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“presumption that Congress does not intend to violate international law”). We recognize that there may be some variation in scope between the Convention and the FCPA. The FCPA prohibits payments inducing official action that”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. United States v. Kay
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.