LegalNewsLine Logo  
Friday, July 25 2008     Subscribe in NewsGator Online
News | Contact LegalNewsline | About Us | Advertise | RSS
Enter search keyword
 
NEWSLETTER
Receive our FREE weekly newsletter
click here
LNL MOST POPULAR ARTICLES
+ Bailey's contributions at issue in Pennsylvania case
+ Not just AGs sicking outside counsel on big business
+ Cuomo files criminal charges against apartment broker
+ Oklahoma AG featured in anti-gay campaign flyer
+ Judiciary Committee to probe 'pro-business' Supreme Court rulings
LNL HOT TOPICS
+ Asbestos
+ Big Pharma
+ Class Action
+ Dickie Scruggs
+ Gasoline Prices
+ Global Warming
+ Hurricane Katrina
+ Lead Paint
+ Personal Injury
+ Sub-Prime Mortgages
+ Tobacco
+ Tort Reform
U.S. Supreme Court 
 
Justices' recusals allow anti-apartheid suit to go forward
WASHINGTON (Legal Newsline) - A lawsuit will move forward against 33 companies that did business in South Africa during apartheid because the U.S. Supreme Court was unable to form a quorum.

The class action lawsuit involves plaintiffs that had sued the companies that did business in South Africa during apartheid, including BP, Exxon, CitiBank, General Electric and IBM.

The lawsuit seeks to hold the companies liable for allegedly being complicit in perpetuating oppression of the black majority in South Africa.

The plaintiffs are seeking more than $400 billion from the companies, which also includes American Isuzu Motors Inc., a unit of Isuzu Motors Ltd., Ford Motor Co., JPMorgan Chase & Co., Honeywell International Inc., and 3M Co.

Under federal law, judges may not participate in deciding cases if they, a spouse or minor child own stock in a company that is a party to a case.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito and Stephen Breyer recused themselves because of stock holdings in several of the companies listed as defendants, while some believe Justice Anthony Kennedy may have recused himself because of his son's position at one of the companies.

When the Court is unable to form a quorum a statute requires it to affirm the judgment of the lower court.

The Second Circuit had held that claims under the Torture Victims Protection Act would be dismissed while claims under the Alien Tort Claims Act could go forward to trial, which is what will happen now.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit had ruled on Oct. 12, 2007 that: "U.S. courts have jurisdiction under the Alien Tort Claims Act to hear certain tort claims brought by apartheid victims against companies that allegedly collaborated with the South African government in the maintenance of the regime."

From Legal Newsline: Reach reporter Lin Young at linyoung10@gmail.com.

Filed Under: U.S. Supreme Court


COMMENTS ON THIS ARTICLE:

No comments have been posted in the last 15 days!

SEND US YOUR COMMENTS ON THIS ARTICLE:


* - Required fields

Subject: *
Message: *
Contact Name: *
Contact URL:
Contact Email: *
This Is CAPTCHA Image
Write the characters in the image above: 

E-mail this article to a friend | Printer friendly format

MORE NEWS HEADLINES:
+ Leahy criticizes 'pro-business' Supreme Court - 7/23  
+ Judiciary Committee to probe 'pro-business' Supreme Court rulings - 7/21  
+ Exxon fights interest payments to Exxon Valdez plaintiffs - 7/16  
+ UPDATE: Exxon Valdez plaintiffs seek interest award - 7/12  
+ Age bias ruling could lead to flood of employment lawsuits - 7/12  
+ Starr may defend Arizona's English learner funding - 7/12  
+ AGs celebrate landmark firearms ruling - 6/26  
+ McKenna laments Exxon ruling - 6/25  
+ Legal expert calls Exxon Valdez decision 'limited' - 6/25  
+ Supreme Court slashes Exxon Valdez award - 6/25  


BROWSE BY STATE:
 
BROWSE BY AG:
 
BROWSE BY DATE:
 
LATEST LNL BLOG ENTRIES:
+ Pa. AG candidate: Corbett's sludge stance on side of corporations
+ McDonnell: Virginia laws adapting to new counterfeit products
+ McDonnell: Not the time for new taxes

NEWS | CONTACT LEGALNEWSLINE | ABOUT US | ADVERTISE | RSS © 2008 LegalNewsLine.com. All Rights Reserved.