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
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (3,397 characters)
772
349 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES
349 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES
federal law where the defendant has sufficient contacts with the United States as a whole but is not subject to jurisdiction in any particular state, there must be a federal claim, personal jurisdiction must not exist over the defendant in any state, and the defendant must have sufficient contacts with the United States as a whole such that the exercise of jurisdiction does not violate Fifth Amendment due process. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5; Fed.Rules Civ. Proc.Rule 4(k)(2), 28 U.S.C.A.
44. Constitutional Law [Key] 305(5)
To comply with the Due Process Clause, jurisdiction based on the Antiterrorism Act (ATA), or on the rule establishing personal jurisdiction in any district court for cases arising under federal law where the defendant has sufficient contacts with the United States as a whole but is not subject to jurisdiction in any particular state, requires minimum contacts with the United States, which may be established under a “personally directed” theory. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5; 18 U.S.C.A. § 2334(a); Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 4(k)(2), 28 U.S.C.A.
To comply with the Due Process Clause, jurisdiction based on the Antiterrorism Act (ATA), or on the rule establishing personal jurisdiction in any district court for cases arising under federal law where the defendant has sufficient contacts with the United States as a whole but is not subject to jurisdiction in any particular state, requires minimum contacts with the United States, which may be established under a “personally directed” theory. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5; 18 U.S.C.A. § 2334(a); Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 4(k)(2), 28 U.S.C.A.
45. Constitutional Law [Key] 305(5)
Federal Courts [Key] 76.25, 86
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 by survivors of victims of September 11, 2001 attacks, given questions as to defendants' contacts with forum and attenuated nature of their alleged involvement with al Qaeda. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5; 18 U.S.C.A. § 2331 et seq.
Federal Courts [Key] 76.25, 86
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 by survivors of victims of September 11, 2001 attacks, given questions as to defendants' contacts with forum and attenuated nature of their alleged involvement with al Qaeda. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5; 18 U.S.C.A. § 2331 et seq.
46. Constitutional Law [Key] 305(4.1)
Any exercise of personal jurisdiction must comport with the requirements of due process. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5.
Any exercise of personal jurisdiction must comport with the requirements of due process. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5.
47. Constitutional Law [Key] 305(4.1)
Depending on the basis for personal jurisdiction, due process under either the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendment applies. U.S.C.A. Const.Amends. 5, 14.
Depending on the basis for personal jurisdiction, due process under either the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendment applies. U.S.C.A. Const.Amends. 5, 14.
48. Courts [Key] 12(2.5)
Personal jurisdiction under the New York long-arm statute requires minimum contacts with New York pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 14; N.Y.McKinney's CPLR 302(a)(2).
Personal jurisdiction under the New York long-arm statute requires minimum contacts with New York pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 14; N.Y.McKinney's CPLR 302(a)(2).
49. Constitutional Law [Key] 305(5)
Pursuant to the Fifth Amendment, personal jurisdiction, under the rule establishing personal jurisdiction in any district court for cases arising under federal law where the defendant has sufficient contacts with the United States as a whole but is not subject to jurisdiction in any particular state, requires contacts with the United States as a whole. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5; Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 4(k)(2), 28 U.S.C.A.
Pursuant to the Fifth Amendment, personal jurisdiction, under the rule establishing personal jurisdiction in any district court for cases arising under federal law where the defendant has sufficient contacts with the United States as a whole but is not subject to jurisdiction in any particular state, requires contacts with the United States as a whole. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5; Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 4(k)(2), 28 U.S.C.A.
50. Constitutional Law [Key] 305(5)
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. U.S.C.A. Const.Amends. 5, 14.
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. U.S.C.A. Const.Amends. 5, 14.
51. Constitutional Law [Key] 305(5)
The “fair warning” requirement of the Due Process Clause is satisfied if the defendant has purposefully directed his activities at the residents of the forum and the litigation results from alleged injuries that arise out of or relate to those activities. U.S.C.A. Const.Amends. 5, 14.
The “fair warning” requirement of the Due Process Clause is satisfied if the defendant has purposefully directed his activities at the residents of the forum and the litigation results from alleged injuries that arise out of or relate to those activities. U.S.C.A. Const.Amends. 5, 14.
52. Constitutional Law [Key] 305(5)
Federal Courts [Key] 76.5, 76.10
For purposes of the minimum contacts inquiry required by the Due Process
Federal Courts [Key] 76.5, 76.10
For purposes of the minimum contacts inquiry required by the Due Process
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017837
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document