Business Law Cases Solved
Chapter 1
Introduction to International and Comparative Law
Case 1-1. IGNACIO SEQUIHUA V. TEXACO INC. ET AL.
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, 1994.
FACTS: Plaintiffs, Ecuador residents, filed suit in Texas over alleged environmental damage in Ecuador. Plaintiffs pray for money damages, an injunction to clean up, and a court-administered trust fund. Defendants bring motions to dismiss.
ISSUE: Should the court decline to exercise jurisdiction based on the doctrine of comity of nations?
HOLDING: Yes.
LAW: Section 403(3) of the Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States sets out numerous factors in deciding whether comity of nations deference should be applied.
EXPLANATION: The alleged activities and harm occurred in Ecuador; plaintiffs all reside in Ecuador; defendants are not Texas residents; the Republic of Ecuador has objected to the court’s jurisdiction and would probably not enforce any judgment it issued; and jurisdiction would interfere with Ecuador’s sovereign right to control its own environment.
ORDER: The case is dismissed under the doctrine of comity of nations.
Case 1-2. SEI FUJII v. STATE
United States, Supreme Court of California, 1952.
FACTS: A California law made land purchased by a Japanese who was ineligible for citizenship escheat to the state.
ISSUES: (1) Does California’s alien land law violate the UN Charter? (2) If it does, is the UN Charter automatically applicable? (3) Does the California law violate the US Constitution?
HOLDING: The law violates the UN Charter and the US Constitution. The UN Charter is not self-executing, but the US Constitution is.
LAWS: (1) At the time, there was no US-Japan treaty giving Japanese the right to own land in the US. (2) The UN Charter requires nations to promote human rights (including non-discrimination based on national origin). (3) Treaties (such as the UN Charter) are part of American law and must be observed. (4)
Introduction to International and Comparative Law
Case 1-1. IGNACIO SEQUIHUA V. TEXACO INC. ET AL.
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, 1994.
FACTS: Plaintiffs, Ecuador residents, filed suit in Texas over alleged environmental damage in Ecuador. Plaintiffs pray for money damages, an injunction to clean up, and a court-administered trust fund. Defendants bring motions to dismiss.
ISSUE: Should the court decline to exercise jurisdiction based on the doctrine of comity of nations?
HOLDING: Yes.
LAW: Section 403(3) of the Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States sets out numerous factors in deciding whether comity of nations deference should be applied.
EXPLANATION: The alleged activities and harm occurred in Ecuador; plaintiffs all reside in Ecuador; defendants are not Texas residents; the Republic of Ecuador has objected to the court’s jurisdiction and would probably not enforce any judgment it issued; and jurisdiction would interfere with Ecuador’s sovereign right to control its own environment.
ORDER: The case is dismissed under the doctrine of comity of nations.
Case 1-2. SEI FUJII v. STATE
United States, Supreme Court of California, 1952.
FACTS: A California law made land purchased by a Japanese who was ineligible for citizenship escheat to the state.
ISSUES: (1) Does California’s alien land law violate the UN Charter? (2) If it does, is the UN Charter automatically applicable? (3) Does the California law violate the US Constitution?
HOLDING: The law violates the UN Charter and the US Constitution. The UN Charter is not self-executing, but the US Constitution is.
LAWS: (1) At the time, there was no US-Japan treaty giving Japanese the right to own land in the US. (2) The UN Charter requires nations to promote human rights (including non-discrimination based on national origin). (3) Treaties (such as the UN Charter) are part of American law and must be observed. (4)