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 Adm'x 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, 403 F.3d 708 (9th Cir. 2005). · 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 Adm'x 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, 403 F.3d 708 (9th Cir. 2005). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
17 citation events (17 in the last 25 years) across 10 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Xianhua v. Oath Holdings, Inc. f/k/a/Yahoo! Inc. (cand, 2021-04-29)
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Xianhua v. Oath Holdings, Inc. f/k/a/Yahoo! Inc.
N.D. Cal. · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
See Doe I v. Unocal Corp., 395 F.3d 932, 960 (9th Cir. 8 2002) (“In the present case, an act of state issue arises because the court must decide that the 9 conduct by the Myanmar Military violated international law in order to hold Unocal liable for 10 aiding and abetting that conduct.”), on reh’g en banc dism’d by stipulation of the parties sub nom., 11 403 F.3d 708 (9th Cir. 2005).
discussed Cited "see" In Re South African Apartheid Litigation
S.D.N.Y. · 2009 · signal: accord · confidence high
Accord Flores v. Southern Peru Copper Corp., 414 F.3d 233, 248 (2d Cir.2003) ("[I]n determining what offenses violate customary international law, courts must proceed with extraordinary care and restraint."). [74] See Kadic, 70 F.3d at 239 . [75] See Sosa, 542 U.S. at 732 n. 20, 124 S.Ct. 2739 . [76] See Vietnam Ass'n for Victims of Agent Orange v. Dow Chemical Co., 517 F.3d 104, 120 (2d Cir.2008) (noting plaintiffs' concession that it was not clearly established that defendants' conduct during the Vietnam War violated norms of customary international law established prior to 1975). [77] See K…
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, 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." 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).
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 Administratrix 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.
Apr 13, 2005.
403 F.3d 708
Published

403 F.3d 708

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 Administratrix 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. 00-57197.

No. 00-56628.

No. 00-57195.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

April 13, 2005.

Julie Shaprio, Esq., Tacoma, WA, Anne Richardson, Esq., Hadsell & Stormer, Pasadena, CA, Judith Brown Chomsky, Esq., Elkins Park, PA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Jennifer Green, Esq., New York, NY, Paul L. Hoffman, Esq., Schonbrun, Desimone, Seplow, Harris and Hoffman, LLP, Venice, CA, Katharine J. Redford, Esq., Wellesley, MA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants/Defendants-Appellees.

Edwin V. Woodsome, Jr., Esq., Howrey Simon Arnold & White, LLP., O'Melveny & Myers L.L.P., Peter H. Mason, Esq., Fulbright & Jaworski, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, REINHARDT, KOZINSKI, RYMER, T.G. NELSON, TASHIMA, GRABER, McKEOWN, W. FLETCHER, FISHER, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

1

The parties' stipulated motion to dismiss is GRANTED. The appeals (00-56603, 00-56628, 00-57195, and 00-57197) are dismissed with prejudice. Each party is to bear its own costs.

2

The Appellants' Unopposed Motion to Vacate District Court Opinion, a motion in which Appellees join, is GRANTED. The district court opinion in Doe v. Unocal Corp., 110 F.Supp.2d 1294 (C.D.Cal.2000), is VACATED.