John Doe I, Individually & as Adm'r of the Est. of His Deceased Child Baby Doe I, & on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated Jane Doe I, on Behalf of Herself, as Adminstratrix of the Est. of Her Deceased Child Baby Doe I, & on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated John Doe II John Doe III John Doe IV John Doe v. Jane Doe II Jane Doe III John Doe Vi John Doe Vii John Doe Viii John Doe Ix John Doe X John Doe Xi, on Behalf of Themselves & All Others Similarly Situated & Louisa Benson on Behalf of Herself & the Gen. Pub. v. Unocal Corp., a California Corp. Total S.A., a Foreign Corp. John Imle, an Individual Roger C. Beach, an Individual, John Roe III John Roe Vii John Roe Viii John Roe X v. Unocal Corp. Union Oil Co. of California, 395 F.3d 978 (9th Cir. 2003). · Go Syfert
Search
John Doe I, Individually & as Adm'r of the Est. of His Deceased Child Baby Doe I, & on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated Jane Doe I, on Behalf of Herself, as Adminstratrix of the Est. of Her Deceased Child Baby Doe I, & on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated John Doe II John Doe III John Doe IV John Doe v. Jane Doe II Jane Doe III John Doe Vi John Doe Vii John Doe Viii John Doe Ix John Doe X John Doe Xi, on Behalf of Themselves & All Others Similarly Situated & Louisa Benson on Behalf of Herself & the Gen. Pub. v. Unocal Corp., a California Corp. Total S.A., a Foreign Corp. John Imle, an Individual Roger C. Beach, an Individual, John Roe III John Roe Vii John Roe Viii John Roe X v. Unocal Corp. Union Oil Co. of California, 395 F.3d 978 (9th Cir. 2003). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
32 citation events (32 in the last 25 years) across 12 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Licea v. Curacao Drydock Co., Inc. (flsd, 2008-10-31)
Treatment trajectory · 2003 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2003 2014 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Licea v. Curacao Drydock Co., Inc.
S.D. Fla. · 2008 · signal: see · confidence high
See Doe I v. Unocal Corp., 395 F.3d 932, 946 (9th Cir.2002) (stating that forced labor violates law of nations), vacated on rehearing en banc, 395 F.3d 978 (9th Cir.2003), appeal dismissed, 403 F.3d 708 (9th Cir.2005).
cited Cited "see" Alexis Holyweek Sarei Paul E. Nerau Thomas Tamausi Phillip Miriori Gregory Kopa Methodius Nesiko Aloysius Moses Rapheal Niniku Gabriel Tareasi Linus Takinu, Leo Wuis Michael Akope Benedict Pisi Thomas Kobuko John Tamuasi Norman Mouvo John Osani Ben Korus Namira Kawona Joanne Bosco John Pigolo Magdalene Pigolo, Individually and on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. Rio Tinto, Plc Rio Tinto Limited, Alexis Holyweek Sarei Paul E. Nerau Thomas Tamausi Phillip Miriori Gregory Kopa Methodius Nesiko Aloysius Moses Rapheal Niniku Gabriel Tareasi Linus Takinu, Leo Wuis Michael Akope Benedict Pisi Thomas Kobuko John Tamuasi Norman Mouvo John Osani Ben Korus Namira Kawona Joanne Bosco John Pigolo Magdalene Pigolo, Individually and on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. Rio Tinto, Plc Rio Tinto Limited
9th Cir. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See Doe I v. Unocal, 395 F.3d 932 (9th Cir.2002), rehearing en banc granted, 395 F.3d 978 (9th Cir.2003).
discussed Cited "see" Sarei v. Rio Tinto, Plc (2×)
9th Cir. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See Doe I v. Unocal, 395 F.3d 932 (9th Cir.2002), rehearing en banc granted, 395 F.3d 978 (9th Cir.2003).
cited Cited "see" Alexis Holyweek Sarei Paul E. Nerau Thomas Tamausi Phillip Miriori Gregory Kopa Methodius Nesiko Aloysius Moses Rapheal Niniku Gabriel Tareasi Linus Takinu Leo Wuis Michael Akope Benedict Pisi Thomas Kobuko John Tamuasi Norman Mouvo John Osani Ben Korus Namira Kawona Joanne Bosco John Pigolo Magdalene Pigolo, Individually and on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. Rio Tinto, Plc Rio Tinted Limited, Alexis Holyweek Sarei Paul E. Nerau Thomas Tamausi Phillip Miriori Gregory Kopa Methodius Nesiko Aloysius Moses Rapheal Niniku Gabriel Tareasi Linus Takinu Leo Wuis Michael Akope Benedict Pisi Thomas Kobuko John Tamuasi Norman Mouvo John Osani Ben Korus Namira Kawona Joanne Bosco John Pigolo Magdalene Pigolo, Individually and on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. Rio Tinto, Plc Rio Tinted Limited
9th Cir. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See Doe I v. Unocal, 395 F.3d 932 (9th Cir.2002), rehearing en banc granted, 395 F.3d 978 (9th Cir.2003).
discussed Cited "see" Sarei v. Rio Rinto, Plc (2×)
9th Cir. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See Doe I v. Unocal, 395 F.3d 932 (9th Cir.2002), rehearing en banc granted, 395 F.3d 978 (9th Cir.2003).
discussed Cited "see" In Re Agent Orange Product Liability Litigation (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
E.D.N.Y · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See Doe I v. Unocal Corp., 395 F.3d 932, 948-49 (9th Cir.2002) (finding that violations of international law is the law that applies when it is in conflict with domestic state or federal law), vacated & reh'g en banc granted by 395 F.3d 978 (9th Cir.2003).
discussed Cited "see" Vietnam Ass'n for Victims of Agent Orange/Dioxin v. Dow Chemical Co. (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
unknown court · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See Doe I v. Unocal Corp., 395 F.3d 932, 948-49 (9th Cir.2002) (finding that violations of international law is the law that applies when it is in conflict with domestic state or federal law), vacated & reh’g en banc granted by 395 F.3d 978 (9th Cir.2003).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Sarei v. Rio Tinto, PLC
9th Cir. · 2011 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Doe I v. Unocal Corp., 395 F.3d 932 (9th Cir.2002), reh'g en banc granted, 395 F.3d 978 (9th Cir.2003), dismissed, 403 F.3d 708 (9th Cir.2005). .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Aziz v. Alcolac, Inc.
4th Cir. · 2011 · signal: see also · confidence low
The Appellants urge us to reject Talisman and instead follow the lead of federal courts that have defined the scope of aiding and abetting liability to reach those who provide “knowing assistance that has a substantial effect on the commission of the human rights violation.” Doe VIII, 2011 WL 2652384, at *14 ; see also Doe I v. Unocal Corp., 395 F.3d 932, 951 (9th Cir.2002), vacated reh’g en banc granted 395 F.3d 978 (9th Cir.2003).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Roe v. Bridgestone Corp.
S.D. Ind. · 2009 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Doe I v. Unocal Corp., 395 F.3d 932 (9th Cir.2002), rehearing en banc granted, 395 F.3d 978 (9th Cir.2003) (en bane), appeal dismissed by stipulation, 403 F.3d 708 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman Energy, Inc.
S.D.N.Y. · 2005 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Doe I v. Unocal Corp., 395 F.3d 932, 943 , 954 n. 31, 955 (9th Cir.2002), reh’g en banc granted by 395 F.3d 978 (9th Cir.2003). (2) Mass Tort Litigation Class certification decisions in mass tort cases offer additional guidance in analyzing the predominance of common questions over individual issues in a case in which class members have suffered physical injuries.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
John Doe I, Individually & as Administrator of the Estate of His Deceased Child Baby Doe I, & on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated Jane Doe I, on Behalf of Herself, as Adminstratrix of the Estate of Her Deceased Child Baby Doe I, & on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated John Doe II John Doe III John Doe IV John Doe
v.
Jane Doe II Jane Doe III John Doe Vi John Doe Vii John Doe Viii John Doe Ix John Doe X John Doe Xi, on Behalf of Themselves & All Others Similarly Situated & Louisa Benson on Behalf of Herself & the General Public v. Unocal Corporation, a California Corporation Total S.A., a Foreign Corporation John Imle, an Individual Roger C. Beach, an Individual, John Roe III John Roe Vii John Roe Viii John Roe X v. Unocal Corporation Union Oil Company of California
00-56603.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Feb 14, 2003.
395 F.3d 978
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

395 F.3d 978

John DOE I, individually & as Administrator of the Estate of his deceased child Baby Doe I, & on behalf of all others similarly situated; Jane Doe I, on behalf of herself, as Adminstratrix of the Estate of her deceased child Baby Doe I, & on behalf of all others similarly situated; John Doe II; John Doe III; John Doe IV; John Doe V; Jane Doe II; Jane Doe III; John Doe VI; John Doe VII; John Doe VIII; John Doe IX; John Doe X; John Doe XI, on behalf of themselves & all others similarly situated & Louisa Benson on behalf of herself & the general public, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
UNOCAL CORPORATION, a California Corporation; Total S.A., a Foreign Corporation; John Imle, an individual; Roger C. Beach, an individual, Defendants-Appellees.
John Roe III; John Roe VII; John Roe VIII; John Roe X, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
Unocal Corporation; Union Oil Company Of California, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 00-56603.

No. 00-56628.

D.C. No. CV-96-06959-RSWL.

D.C. No. CV-96-06112-RSWL.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

February 14, 2003.

Julie Shaprio, Tacoma, WA, Anne Richardson, Hadsell & Stormer, Pasadena, CA, Jennifer Green, New York, NY, Judith Brown Chomsky, Elkins Park, PA, Paul L. Hoffman, Schonbrun, DeSimone, Seplow, Harris and Hoffman, LLP, Venice, CA, Katharine J. Redford, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Edwin V. Woodsome, Jr., Howrey, Simon, Arnold & White, LLP, Peter H. Mason, Fulbright & Jaworski, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Christhoper E. Krafchak, Krafchak & Associates, Los Angeles, CA, Terry Collingsworth, Washington, DC, Joseph C. Kohn, Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C., Philadelphia, PA, Cristobal Bonifaz, Law Offices of Cristobal Bonifaz, Amherst, MA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Daniel P. Collins, Munger, Tolles & Olson, Los Angeles, CA, Kristin L. Myles, Munger, Tolles & Olson, LLP, San Francisco, CA, Edwin V. Woodsome, Jr., Howrey, Simon, Arnold & White, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge.

ORDER

1

Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused regular active judges of this court,[1] it is ordered that this case be reheard by the en banc court pursuant to Circuit Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel opinion shall not be cited as precedent by or to this court or any district court of the Ninth Circuit, except to the extent adopted by the en banc court.

Notes:

1

Judges Wardlaw, Paez and Berzon were recused