28 U.S.C. § 1609
Immunity from attachment and execution of property of a foreign state
Subject to existing international agreements to which the United States is a party at the time of enactment of this Act the property in the United States of a foreign state shall be immune from attachment 1
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 167
cases (21 in the last 5 years), 1978–2026 · leading case: Peterson v. Islamic Republic of Iran
Peterson v. Islamic Republic of Iran (2010)
“” 28 U.S.C. § 1609 . Thus, the plain language of the statute does not provide a means for the court to address the issue sua sponte.”
Weininger v. Castro (2006)
“See 28 U.S.C. § 1609 ; FG Hemisphere Assocs., LLC v.”
Rubin v. the Islamic Republic of Iran (2006)
“Furthermore, they asserted that even if they did hold any such property, it would be immune from attachment under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, (“FSIA” or “the Act”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1609 , 1610. Rather than responding directly to the motions to quash, 1 the plaintiffs…”
Bennett v. Islamic Republic of Iran (2016)
“28 U.S.C. § 1609 . In First National City Bank v.”
Peterson v. Islamic Republic of Iran (2017)
“See 28 U.S.C. § 1609 (“[T]he property in the United States of a foreign state shali be immune from attachment arrest and execution ,.”
Banco De Seguros Del Estado v. Mutual Marine Office, Inc. And Mt. McKinley Insurance Company, as Successor of the Gibral (2003)
“” 28 U.S.C. § 1609 . In Stephens v. Nat’l Distillers and Chem.”
Thai Lao Lignite (Thailand) Co. v. Government of the Lao People's Democratic Republic (2013)
“On April 4, 2011, Judge Freeman ordered discovery regarding Respondent’s bank accounts (the “April 4 Order”), which Respondent contended were immune from discovery and attachment under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1996 (“FSIA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1609 -ll. 3 The Court…”
Bennett v. Islamic Republic of Iran (2016)
“28 U.S.C. § 1609 . In First National City Bank v.”
Susan Weinstein v. Islamic Republic of Iran (2016)
“13 Second, it establishes immunity from “attachment^] arrest and execution,” 28 U.S.C. § 1609 . 14 ICANN contends that, because the plaintiffs did not adequately establish an.”
Jenny Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran (2016)
“A foreign state’s property in the United States is immune from attachment and execution, see 28 U.S.C. § 1609 , but there are a few narrow exceptions.”
Walters v. INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL BANK OF CHINA (2011)
“” 8 This language places no limit on the district court’s authority to recognize execution immunity.”
FG Hemisphere Associates, LLC v. Democratic Republic of Congo (2006)
“Some two months later, the DRC filed a Rule 60(b) motion to quash the execution order, arguing, among other things, that its failure to respond earlier was due to “excusable neglect” and that the two properties were immune from execution under 28 U.S.C. § 1609 as “property in…”
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.