Browse the archives

Browse the articles in this issue.

• COMPETITION
  In suit against General Motors of Canada, by auto chassis upgrader who sold its products in United States, Manitoba Court of Appeal found no violation of Canadian competition laws since Plaintiff’s receivership came about in large part due to strengthening of Canadian versus U.S. dollar
• DEFAMATION
  Majority of House of Lords panel rules that Article 10 of European Human Rights Convention does not bar news corporation with commercial ties to English market from recovering in defamation action even in absence of alleging special damages
• FOREIGN LAW, PROOF OF
  In case of first impression, Tenth Circuit rules that choice-of-Swiss-law clause in interpreting international contract requires remand for lower court to determine that law under guidelines of Civil Rule 44.1
• INTERNATIONAL TRADE
  When presented with appeal from U.S. Court of International Trade which had ruled that improper customs’ procedure had been followed in reclassification of Plaintiff’s product, Federal Circuit dismisses for lower court’s lack of jurisdiction
• JURISDICTION (DIVERSITY)
  In deciding diversity of citizenship issues, Seventh Circuit rules that permanent resident aliens domiciled in U.S. state have both state and foreign citizenship for purposes of 28 U.S.C. Section 1332
• JURISDICTION (HIGH SEAS)
  In case of drug seizure on high seas by U.S. authorities, Ninth Circuit finds that Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act validly assigned determination of constitutional nexus to judge rather than jury
• SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY
  Eleventh Circuit holds that foreign state’s offer of reward for providing information to catch fugitive is “commercial activity” within FSIA exception
• SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY
  D.C. Circuit finds that FSIA definition of “hostage taking” focuses on state of mind of hostage taker thus making it unnecessary for plaintiff to show that hostage taker communicated demand showing underlying intent to third party
• WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
  On complaint brought by United States, WTO Appellate Body decides that, in some instances, EC agencies do not administer their customs laws and classifications uniformly and reasonably