§Why CasetextPricing

In Re: Chiquita Brands International, Inc., Alien Tort Statute and Shareholders Derivative Litigation

RESPONSE in Opposition re

20 Cited authorities

  1. Z.K. Marine, Inc. v. M/V Archigetis

    808 F. Supp. 1561 (S.D. Fla. 1992)   Cited 269 times
    Denying reconsideration motion where party asked court to "rethink" its previous order

  2. Lussier v. Dugger

    904 F.2d 661 (11th Cir. 1990)   Cited 202 times
    Holding that plaintiff should be allowed to supplement his complaint with the fact that since filing against a state agency under the federal Rehabilitation Act, the Act had been amended to abrogate the state's Eleventh Amendment immunity, and thus the district court had jurisdiction over the case for any violations that took place subsequent to the date of the amendment's enactment

  3. Neely v. Club Med Management Services Inc.

    63 F.3d 166 (3d Cir. 1995)   Cited 111 times
    Holding that a defendant waives her objections when the verdict form is submitted to counsel and defendant "fails to object to the form and language of special verdict form[] . . . before closing arguments or at the close of charging before the jury retires to deliberations"

  4. Ben-Rafael v. Islamic Republic of Iran

    540 F. Supp. 2d 39 (D.D.C. 2008)   Cited 70 times
    Holding that service under section 1608 was not possible and plaintiff's obligations were satisfied when delivery was attempted and recipient refused delivery

  5. Baloco ex Rel. Tapia v. Drummond Co., Inc.

    640 F.3d 1338 (11th Cir. 2011)   Cited 53 times
    Holding that children had a claim cognizable under the ATS for the assassination of their fathers

  6. Bodoff v. Islamic Republic of Iran

    424 F. Supp. 2d 74 (D.D.C. 2006)   Cited 58 times
    Determining this bus bombing to be “extremely heinous”

  7. D'Agostino v. Johnson Johnson, Inc.

    133 N.J. 516 (N.J. 1993)   Cited 84 times
    Holding that New Jersey law applied to claims of unlawful termination brought by a Swiss resident working in Switzerland against a New Jersey corporation because the law at issue in the case was intended to regulate the New Jersey corporation's conduct

  8. Association for Disabled Americans, Inc. v. Amoco Oil Co.

    211 F.R.D. 457 (S.D. Fla. 2002)   Cited 63 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Overruling as untimely an objection filed 103 days after the deadline expired and noting that the objections "will disrupt the fair and adequate settlement, to the parties' substantial prejudice"

  9. Maher v. GSI Lumonics, Inc.

    433 F.3d 123 (1st Cir. 2005)   Cited 40 times
    Finding that where "the district court 'transferred' the state-law claims only after declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, the district judge likely meant for the 'transfer' to operate as a dismissal"

  10. Membreño v. Costa Crociere S.P.A

    425 F.3d 932 (11th Cir. 2005)   Cited 38 times
    Holding that shipowner ("Costa") was not subject to the Jones Act despite the fact that it was a fully owned one-hundred percent subsidiary of an American corporation, explaining that "[al]though Costa markets some of its cruises in the United States, 80 to 85% of its business comes from the European market. Only a small number of Costa's cruises originate from or call at American ports. During the relevant period, Costa's fleet spent only 3.4% of its sailing days at American ports. Costa maintains a United States subsidiary, Costa Cruise Lines, N.V., that markets and sells passenger tickets in the United States, but that subsidiary is just one of eight separate companies that markets Costa cruises."