Legal Opinion
Sarei v. Rio Tinto, Plc
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided April 11, 2007No. 02-56256, 02-56390PublishedCited by 26 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
Rio Tinto’s petition for rehearing and for rehearing en banc is granted in part. The majority opinion and dissent filed Au*1197gust 7, 2006, see Sarei v. Rio Tinto, PLC, 456 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir.2006), are hereby withdrawn. A superseding opinion and dissent will be filed concurrently with this order. Further petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc may be filed.
OPINION
FISHER, Circuit Judge:
This appeal presents questions of justici-ability and exhaustion in the context of the Alien Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1350 (“ATCA”). Plaintiffs are current or former residents of Bougainville, Papua…
2Cases cited67 opinions
- Foman v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Williams v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Lopez v. SmithCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000
- Baker v. CarrSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Marbury v. MadisonSupreme Court of the United States · 1803
62 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corp.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2011
- Velez v. SanchezCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2012
- Bashe Yousuf v. Mohamed SamantarCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2012
- Sarei v. Rio Tinto, PLCCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2011
- John Roe I v. Bridgestone Corp.District Court, S.D. Indiana · 2007
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.