HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017838.jpg
2.19 MB
Extraction Summary
2
People
4
Organizations
2
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document / court opinion headnotes (federal supplement)
File Size:
2.19 MB
Summary
This document is a page from a legal reporter (349 F.Supp.2d 765) concerning the case 'In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001', dated 2005. It outlines legal headnotes (53-60) regarding the court's decision that allegations against a Saudi Arabian Prince and the Saudi Royal Family—concerning business ties via Saudi Arabia Airlines and charitable donations allegedly funding terrorism—were insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction in the United States. The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' Bates stamp, suggesting it was part of a Congressional document production.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Saudi Arabian Prince | Defendant |
Subject of jurisdictional dispute regarding funding of terrorism and business ties.
|
| Saudi Royal Family | Group |
Alleged to own substantial assets in the US and fund terrorist acts.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Saudi Arabia Airlines |
Airline mentioned where the Prince was ex-officio Chairman.
|
|
| Federal Courts |
Legal body issuing the opinion.
|
|
| United States District Court (S.D.N.Y.) |
The court where the case was cited.
|
|
| House Oversight Committee |
Implied by the Bates stamp 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017838'.
|
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location of business assets and jurisdiction.
|
|
|
Southern District of New York (Court location).
|
Relationships (2)
Ex-officio Chairman of Board
Donated money to charities
Key Quotes (3)
"Allegations that Saudi Royal Family members owned substantial assets in and did substantial business in United States... were insufficient to establish general personal jurisdiction over Prince in Antiterrorism Act (ATA) action"Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017838.jpg
Quote #1
"Allegations that Saudi Arabian Prince aided and abetted terrorism, and that he donated to charities that he knew to be supporters of international terrorism, were insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction"Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017838.jpg
Quote #2
"In general, great care and reserve should be exercised when extending notions of personal jurisdiction into the international field."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017838.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (3,427 characters)
IN RE TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 773
Cite as 349 F.Supp.2d 765 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)
Cite as 349 F.Supp.2d 765 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)
Clause, a distinction is made between specific and general jurisdiction, such that "specific jurisdiction" exists when the forum exercises jurisdiction over the defendant in a suit arising out of the defendant's contacts with that forum, while "general jurisdiction" is based on the defendant's general business contacts with the forum; because the defendant's contacts are not related to the suit, a considerably higher level of contacts is generally required for general jurisdiction. U.S.C.A. Const. Amends. 5, 14.
See publication Words and Phrases for other judicial constructions and definitions.
See publication Words and Phrases for other judicial constructions and definitions.
53. Constitutional Law 305(5)
In determining whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction is reasonable under the Due Process Clause, a court is to consider: (1) the burden that the exercise of jurisdiction will impose on the defendant; (2) the interests in the forum state in adjudicating the case; (3) the plaintiff's interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief; (4) the interstate judicial system's interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of the controversy; and (5) the shared interest of the states in furthering substantive social policies. U.S.C.A. Const.Amends. 5, 14.
In determining whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction is reasonable under the Due Process Clause, a court is to consider: (1) the burden that the exercise of jurisdiction will impose on the defendant; (2) the interests in the forum state in adjudicating the case; (3) the plaintiff's interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief; (4) the interstate judicial system's interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of the controversy; and (5) the shared interest of the states in furthering substantive social policies. U.S.C.A. Const.Amends. 5, 14.
54. Federal Courts 86
In general, great care and reserve should be exercised when extending notions of personal jurisdiction into the international field.
In general, great care and reserve should be exercised when extending notions of personal jurisdiction into the international field.
55. Federal Civil Procedure 1267.1
In evaluating jurisdictional motions, district courts enjoy broad discretion in deciding whether to order discovery.
In evaluating jurisdictional motions, district courts enjoy broad discretion in deciding whether to order discovery.
56. Federal Civil Procedure 1269.1
Courts are not obligated to subject a foreign defendant to discovery where the allegations of jurisdictional facts, construed in plaintiffs' favor, fail to state a basis for the exercise of jurisdiction or where discovery would not uncover sufficient facts to sustain jurisdiction.
Courts are not obligated to subject a foreign defendant to discovery where the allegations of jurisdictional facts, construed in plaintiffs' favor, fail to state a basis for the exercise of jurisdiction or where discovery would not uncover sufficient facts to sustain jurisdiction.
57. Federal Courts 94
Allegations that Saudi Royal Family members owned substantial assets in and did substantial business in United States, and used profits therefrom to fund international terrorist acts, including those leading to September 11 attacks, and that Saudi Arabian Prince was ex-officio Chairman of Board of Saudi Arabia Airlines, which did business in United States and internationally, were insufficient to establish general personal jurisdiction over Prince in Antiterrorism Act (ATA) action by survivors of victims of September 11 attacks. 18 U.S.C.A. § 2331 et seq.
Allegations that Saudi Royal Family members owned substantial assets in and did substantial business in United States, and used profits therefrom to fund international terrorist acts, including those leading to September 11 attacks, and that Saudi Arabian Prince was ex-officio Chairman of Board of Saudi Arabia Airlines, which did business in United States and internationally, were insufficient to establish general personal jurisdiction over Prince in Antiterrorism Act (ATA) action by survivors of victims of September 11 attacks. 18 U.S.C.A. § 2331 et seq.
58. Federal Courts 94
Allegations that Saudi Arabian Prince aided and abetted terrorism, and that he donated to charities that he knew to be supporters of international terrorism, were insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction under "purposefully directed activities" theory in Antiterrorism Act (ATA) action by survivors of victims of September 11, 2001 attacks. 18 U.S.C.A. § 2331 et seq.
Allegations that Saudi Arabian Prince aided and abetted terrorism, and that he donated to charities that he knew to be supporters of international terrorism, were insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction under "purposefully directed activities" theory in Antiterrorism Act (ATA) action by survivors of victims of September 11, 2001 attacks. 18 U.S.C.A. § 2331 et seq.
59. Federal Courts 94
Allegations that Saudi Arabian Prince donated money to charities were insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction in Antiterrorism Act (ATA) action by survivors of victims of September 11, 2001 attacks, absent specific factual allegations that he knew charities were funding money to terrorists. 18 U.S.C.A. § 2331 et seq.
Allegations that Saudi Arabian Prince donated money to charities were insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction in Antiterrorism Act (ATA) action by survivors of victims of September 11, 2001 attacks, absent specific factual allegations that he knew charities were funding money to terrorists. 18 U.S.C.A. § 2331 et seq.
60. Federal Courts 86
Saudi Arabian Prince's alleged contacts with United States, during ten-year period prior to September 11, 2001 at-
Saudi Arabian Prince's alleged contacts with United States, during ten-year period prior to September 11, 2001 at-
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017838
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document