Legal Opinion
Cruz v. United States
District Court, N.D. California
Decided June 16, 2005No. C 01-0892 CRBPublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
AMENDED MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: MEXICAN DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
BREYER, District Judge.
The Court, in order to correct the legal error contained therein, hereby amends its March 30, 2005 Memorandum and Order Granting Mexican Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss read as follows:
Now before the Court is the Mexican Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint (SAC) on several bases, including: (1) sovereign immunity; (2) personal jurisdiction; (3) lack of a private right of action; (4) the act of state doctrine; (5) international comity; and (6) statute of limitations. After…
2Cases cited72 opinions
- Will v. Michigan Department of State PoliceSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. HaldermanSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Helicopteros Nacionales De Colombia, S. A. v. HallSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Hilton v. GuyotSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
67 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Lien Huynh v. Chase Manhattan BankCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2006
- Weininger v. CastroDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2006
- United States v. One Gulfstream G-V Jet AircraftDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2013
- Orient Mineral Co. v. Bank of ChinaCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2007
- Frontera Resources Azerbaijan Corp. v. State Oil Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 2007
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.