HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017837.jpg
2.2 MB
Extraction Summary
2
People
3
Organizations
2
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal case law / court opinion headnotes (federal supplement)
File Size:
2.2 MB
Summary
This document is page 772 from Volume 349 of the Federal Supplement, 2d Series. It contains legal headnotes (numbered 44-52) summarizing points of law regarding Constitutional Law, Federal Courts, and Personal Jurisdiction. Specifically, Headnote 45 references litigation involving 'Saudi Arabian Princes' and their alleged involvement with 'al Qaeda' concerning the September 11, 2001 attacks, discussing whether the court has personal jurisdiction over them under the Antiterrorism Act. The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' footer, suggesting it was part of a production for a Congressional investigation, though the text itself does not mention Jeffrey Epstein.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Saudi Arabian Princes | Defendants |
Defendants in Antiterrorism Act (ATA) action regarding 9/11 attacks; subject to personal jurisdiction inquiry.
|
| Survivors of victims of September 11, 2001 | Plaintiffs (implied) |
Parties bringing the Antiterrorism Act action.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| al Qaeda |
Terrorist organization with alleged involvement by defendants.
|
|
| Federal Courts |
Judicial body overseeing the jurisdiction questions.
|
|
| House Oversight Committee |
Implied by the footer 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017837', indicating this document is part of a Congressional investigation pro...
|
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Jurisdictional forum.
|
|
|
Referenced regarding 'long-arm statute' and jurisdiction.
|
Relationships (1)
Text mentions 'attenuated nature of their alleged involvement with al Qaeda.'
Key Quotes (2)
"Modified due process standard appropriate for mass torts would not be applied to question whether district court had personal jurisdiction over Saudi Arabian Princes and other defendants in Antiterrorism Act (ATA) action"Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017837.jpg
Quote #1
"The due process minimum contacts requirement is known as 'fair warning,' such that the defendant's contacts with the forum should be sufficient to make it reasonable to be haled into court there."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017837.jpg
Quote #2
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document