Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-wpx69 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-12T05:59:21.150Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

United States: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Decision in Helen Liu V. the Republic of China

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Judical and Similar Proceedings
Information
International Legal Materials , Volume 29 , Issue 1 , January 1990 , pp. 192 - 207
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

* [Reproduced from the text provided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.]

1 The district court, in its order granting the ROC's motion to dismiss, stated that Henry Liu was killed by Chen Chi-li and Wu. Chen Chi-li, however, did not actually shoot Henry Liu, rather he recruited Wu and Tung. The ROC tribunals found that Chen Chi-li waited at a nearby gas station

2 The Restatement gives the following example of a judicial decree that would qualify as an act of state: 6.State A obtains by eminent domain proceedings title to an electric utility system in its territory. The vesting of title is an act of state within the meaning of the rule stated in this Section.See, Restatement (Second) of Foreign Relations Law of the United States §41 at 128.

3 A recent law review note discusses this issue.See, Note, When Nations Kill: The, Liu Case and the Act of State Doctrine in Wrongful Death Suits., 12 Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 465, 483-84 (1989). Because the parties have not had the opportunity to address the arguments presented in the Note, we do not rely upon it.