Browse the archives

Browse the articles in this issue.

• ALIEN TORT CLAIMS ACT
  In suit by Nigerian citizens against former dictator, Seventh Circuit rules that Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act does not apply to individuals and that Torture Victim Protection Act precludes plaintiffs’ Alien Tort Claims Act claims
• AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
  In class action by disabled U.S. citizens against Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd., majority of U.S. Supreme Court narrowly construes “clear statement rule” as to applicability of Americans with Disabilities Act to foreign ships that ply U.S. ports so that main principles of Act may apply subject to its own internal limitations and exceptions as well as to demands of international law
• ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
  In dispute over duty of U.S. to carry out environmental clean-up of its abandoned U.S. bases in Philippines, Ninth Circuit holds that CERCLA generally does not apply outside U.S. territory
• EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS
  In dispute over attorneys’ fees in Holocaust litigation, Ninth Circuit reverses lower court’s finding that plaintiffs were not “prevailing parties” while it discusses, without deciding, whether executive agreements with Germany, Austria and France created judicially enforceable private rights within meaning of 42 U.S.C. Section 1983
• PATENTS
  In patent action by U.S. drug company, Supreme Court of Canada decides whether to allow appeal of Canadian drug company from order issued under recent patent regulations (which sought to conform to Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights and North American Free Trade Agreement) imposing freeze period on defendant’s new drug based mainly on presence of same public domain substance in both plaintiff’s and defendant’s anticancer drugs
• TERRITORIAL WATERS
  U.S. Supreme Court rejects State of Alaska’s claim of title to certain submerged lands underlying waters located in southeastern Alaska finding insufficient evidence to support historic inland waters status
• TRADEMARKS
  Under Cuba trade embargo provisions, Cuban cigar maker did not acquire U.S. trademark protection because it had failed to register it in U.S. and because it could not rely on “famous marks” doctrine under applicable statutes and treaties