18 U.S.C. § 1092
Exclusive remedies
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as precluding the application of State or local laws to the conduct proscribed by this chapter, nor shall anything in this chapter be construed as creating any substantive or procedural right enforceable by law by any party in any proceeding.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2007–2024 · leading case: Khulumani v. Barclay National Bank Ltd.
Khulumani v. Barclay National Bank Ltd. (2007)
“" 18 U.S.C. § 1092 . In Kadic, which was decided prior to Sosa, we held that "the legislative decision not to create a new private remedy does not imply that a private remedy is not already available under the Alien Tort Act.”
Sarei v. Rio Tinto, PLC (2011)
“concurring) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 1092 ). This did not, *759 however, affect the availability of an ATS claim.”
Keliihuluhulu: v. Keanaaina (2019)
“18 U.S.C. § 1092 (“nor shall anything in this chapter be construed as creating any substantive or procedural right enforceable by law by any party in any proceeding”); see also Saleem v.”
Noa Kanealii Io Pono I Kelii Ua Mau v. Saito (2024)
“977 (providing for no private right of action); 18 U.S.C. § 1092 (providing that Section 1091, which is also known as the Proxmire Act and/or the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide, shall not be construed “as creating any substantive or procedural right…”
Snyder v. Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) (2023)
“” 18 U.S.C. § 1092 ; see also Hassain v. U.”
Weaver v. New York State Unified Court System (2023)
“1995) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 1092 ) (noting that § 1091 itself “creates no new federal cause of action in civil proceedings” (quoting H.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.