O\u27Neill v. United States

USDC for the Middle District of Pennsylvani

Ana O-O v. Attorney General United States

Agenc

V.E.E-O. v. Attorney General of United States

Agenc

UNITED STATES V. O\u27HAGAN: THE SUPREME COURT ABANDONS TEXTUALISM TO ADOPT THE MISAPPROPRIATION THEORY

This article analyzes the Supreme Courts ruling in United States v. O\u27Hagen holding that Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act can be applied to insider trading by corporate outsiders. The article argues that the Supreme Court incorrectly expanded the reach of the statute beyond that which Congress had intended

William O\\u27Brien, III v. United States Federal Governme

USDC for the Eastern District of Pennsylvani

Case Digest

A Preliminary Injunction to Prevent a Party from Taking Action in a Foreign Jurisdiction that would Destroy United States Jurisdiction does not Violate Principles of Prescriptive Jurisdiction or International Comity--Laker Airways,Ltd. v. Sabena, Belgian World Airlines, 731 F.2d 909 (D.C. Cir.1984). International Carriers are Subject to the Private Laws of a Foreign State when Carriers are Party to Trade Agreements with that Foreign State and are Doing Business within its Territorial Jurisdiction--British Airways Boardv. Laker Airways, Ltd., [1984] 3 W.L.R. 413; 23 I.L.M. 727. Court of International Trade has Jurisdiction over Claims Challenging Regulations Governing the Importation of Goods Bearing Genuine Trademarks--Vivitar v. United States, 585 F. Supp. 1419 (Ct. Int\u27l Trade 1984). Foreign Sovereignty is not Subject to United States Jurisdiction when Compensation Claims against Sovereignty were not within the Immovable Property or Tortious Act Exceptions to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act--Associacion de Reclamantes v. United Mexican States, 735 F.2d 1517(D.C. Cir. 1984). Explicit Waiver of Immunity to Prejudgment Attachment of Assets requires a High Standard of Proof under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act--Banque Compafina v. Banco de Guatemala, 583 F. Supp. 320 (S.D.N.Y. 1984). Vessel Owned by a Subdivision of the Italian Government is Immune from Arrest--O\u27Connell Machinery Co. v. M.V. Amer-icana, 734 F.2d 115 (2d Cir. 1984). United States Citizen\u27s Political Assassination in Iran not Sufficient to Avoid Iranian Sovereign Immunity in Wrongful Death Action--Berkovitz v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 735 F.2d329 (9th Cir. 1984)

Back-Pay Issues in the Military: O\u27Callahan v. United States

Recovering back-pay and allowances are complex and burdensome. This Article focuses on the particular problems facing the serviceman in post-discharge cases by discussing O\u27Callahan v. United States. O\u27Callahan secured a reversal in his conviction; he brought suit for back-pay and allowances, but was denied because the statute of limitations had run a situation that was not unique. Often, claims by servicemen are rejected on grounds of laches, and definite versus indefinite expiration. These factors make it increasingly difficult for servicemen to prevail on back-pay and allowances claims. Because of the hurdles servicemen face, the author concludes that, unless he can overcome these factors, his claim for back-pay and allowances will invariably be rejected

In Rem Jurisdiction; Attachment of Insurance Debts; State Statutes; O\u27Connorv. Lee-Hy Paving Corp.

The United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, in O\u27Connor v. Lee-Hy Paving Corp., upheld New York\u27s insurance attachment procedure which serves as a vehicle for gaining personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants in causes of action that arise outside of New York. The court thereby determined that New York federal courts, in applying the procedures, had not violated defendant\u27s due process because the minimum contacts requirement of the recent United Stated Supreme Court case, Shaffer v. Heitner, had been met