green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
3.4 score
“the commonsense interpretation of a 'direct effect' is one which has no intervening element, but, rather, flows in a straight line without deviation or interruption.”
Treatment trajectory · 1979 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1979
2002
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
United World Trade, Inc. v. Mangyshlakneft Oil Production Ass'n
the commonsense interpretation of a 'direct effect' is one which has no intervening element, but, rather, flows in a straight line without deviation or interruption.
discussed
Cited "see"
Haven v. RZECZPOSPOLITA POLSKA (REPUB. OF POLAND)
See Upton v. Empire of Iran, 459 F.Supp. 264, 266 (D.D.C.1978)(“The common sense interpretation of a ‘direct effect’ is one which has no intervening element, but, rather, flows in a straight line without deviation or interruption.”), aff'd mem., 607 F.2d 494 (D.C.Cir.1979).
discussed
Cited "see"
Repp v. Lloyd Webber
See Scott v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 449 F.Supp. 518, 520 (D.D.C.1978) (finding speculations and inferences as to access were insufficient to meet defendants’ summary judgment challenge), aff'd, 607 F.2d 494 (D.C.Cir.1979), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 849 , 101 S.Ct. 137 , 66 L.Ed.2d 60 (1980).
cited
Cited "see"
Weltover, Inc. Springdale Enterprises, Inc. Bank Cantrade, A.G. v. Republic of Argentina Banco Central De La Argentina
See Upton v. Empire of Iran, 459 F.Supp. 264, 266 (D.D.C.1978) (effect is “direct” where there is no intervening element), aff 'd, 607 F.2d 494 (D.C.Cir.1979).
discussed
Cited "see"
Fawwaz Zedan v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
See Upton v. Empire of Iran, 459 F.Supp. 264, 266 (D.D.C.1978) (“The common sense interpretation of a ‘direct effect’ is one which has no intervening element, but, rather, flows in a straight line without deviation or interruption.”), aff'd mem., 607 F.2d 494 (D.C.Cir.1979).
cited
Cited "see"
Texas Trading & Milling Corp. v. Federal Republic of Nigeria
Id. at 1064-65 ; accord, Upton v. Empire of Iran, 459 F.Supp. 264 (D.D.C.1978), aff’d 607 F.2d 494 (D.C.Cir. 1979).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
First Fidelity Bank, N.A. v. Government of Antigua & Barbuda-Permanent Mission
“Thus, ... ‘[i]n many cases a resolution of the substantive immunity law issues will be required in order to reach a decision on subject matter jurisdiction_ [A] court may have to interpret the substantive principles embodied in §§ 1605-1607 before deciding whether to take jurisdiction.’ ” Id. at 333 (quoting Corporacion Venezolana de Fomento v. Vintero Sales Corp., 629 F.2d 786 , 790-91 n. 4 (2d Cir.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1080 , 101 S.Ct. 863 , 66 L.Ed.2d 804 (1981)); see also Upton v. Empire of Iran, 459 F.Supp. 264, 265 (D.D.C.1978) (FSIA “creates an identity of substance…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
First Fidelity Bank v. Government Of Antigua & Barbuda
"Thus, ... '[i]n many cases a resolution of the substantive immunity law issues will be required in order to reach a decision on subject matter jurisdiction.... [A] court may have to interpret the substantive principles embodied in Secs. 1605-1607 before deciding whether to take jurisdiction.' " Id. at 333 (quoting Corporacion Venezolana de Fomento v. Vintero Sales Corp., 629 F.2d 786 , 790-91 n. 4 (2d Cir.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1080 , 101 S.Ct. 863 , 66 L.Ed.2d 804 (1981)); see also Upton v. Empire of Iran, 459 F.Supp. 264, 265 (D.D.C.1978) (FSIA "creates an identity of substance and p…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Sudano v. Federal Airports Corp.
See also Upton v. Empire of Iran, 459 F.Supp. 264 (D.D.C.1978), aff'd mem., 607 F.2d 494 (D.C.Cir.1979). ‘The common sense interpretation of a 'direct effect' is one which has no intervening element, but, rather, flows in a straight line without deviation or interruption.” Id. at 266. 5 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
United States
v.
Redfield
v.
Redfield
79-1481.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Oct 31, 1979.
Published
Citer courts: D. Colorado (1)
U. S.
v.
Redfield
No. 79-1481
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
10/31/79
1
D.C.D.C.
AFFIRMED