28 U.S.C. § 1604
Immunity of a foreign state from jurisdiction
Subject to existing international agreements to which the United States is a party at the time of enactment of this Act a foreign state shall be immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States and of the States except as provided in sections 1605 to 1607 of this chapter.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1,028
cases (244 in the last 5 years), 1979–2026 · leading case: Rosalie Simon v. Repub. of Hungary, 812 F.3d 127 (D.C. Cir. 2016).
Rosalie Simon v. Repub. of Hungary, 812 F.3d 127 (D.C. Cir. 2016). “See 28 U.S.C. § 1604 ; Mohammadi v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 782 F.”
Samantar v. Yousuf, 560 U.S. 305 (2010). “The District Court concluded that it lacked sub ject-matter jurisdiction and granted petitioner’s motion to dismiss the suit, resting its decision on the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA or Act), which provides that a “foreign state shall be im mune from the…”
Saudi Arabia v. Nelson, 507 U.S. 349 (1993). “The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 entitles foreign states to immunity from the jurisdiction of courts in the United States, 28 U. S. C. § 1604 , subject to certain enumerated exceptions.”
Rote v. Zel Custom Mfg. LLC, 816 F.3d 383 (6th Cir. 2016). “28 U.S.C. § 1604 . At issue in this case is the commercial- activity exception, codified at 28 U.”
Mobil Cerro Negro, Ltd. v. Bolivarian Repub. of Venezuela, 863 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2017). “28 U.S.C. § 1604 ; see id. § 1605 (“General exceptions to the jurisdictional immunity of a foreign state”).”
Simon v. Repub. of Hungary, 37 F. Supp. 3d 381 (D.D.C. 2014). “§ 1605 (a)(1); and the treaty exception under 28 U.S.C. § 1604 . See id. at 1171, 1173, 1175 .”
Repub. of Sudan v. Harrison, 139 S. Ct. 1048 (2019). “28 U. S. C. §§1604 , 1605–1607. If an exception applies, the FSIA provides subject-matter jurisdiction in federal district court, §1330(a), and personal jurisdic- tion “where service has been made under section 1608,” §1330(b).”
David De Csepel v. Repub. of Hungary, 859 F.3d 1094 (D.C. Cir. 2017). “28 U.S.C. §§ 1604–05. The district court denied Hungary’s motion, concluding that the expropriation exception applies to the Herzog family’s claims and that jurisdiction is not inconsistent with agreements between the United States and Hungary.”
Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. United States, 598 U.S. 264 (2023). “” 28 U. S. C. § 1604 . Section 1604, however, must be considered in con- text.”
Rosalie Simon v. Repub. of Hungary, 77 F.4th 1077 (D.C. Cir. 2023). “See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1604 , 1605-1605B, 1607; OBB Personenverkehr AG v.”
Holocaust Victims of v. Magyar Nemzeti Bank, 692 F.3d 661 (7th Cir. 2012). “The appellate jurisdiction story in all of the interlocutory appeals arising from the bank case begins with the national bank, which moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction based on a defense of sovereign immunity under the FSIA, 28 U.S.C. § 1604 . The district…”
Bolivarian Repub. of Venezuela v. Helmerich & Payne Int'l Drilling Co., 137 S. Ct. 1312 (2017). “" 28 U.S.C. § 1604 . One of the jurisdictional exceptions-the expropriation exception-says that "[a] foreign state shall not be immune from the jurisdiction of courts of the United States or of the States in any case .”
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.