Celsa Hilao v. Estate of Ferdinand E. Marcos, and Swiss Bank Corporation and Credit Suisse

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that under Rule 69(a)’s direction that federal law governs when applicable, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4.1 for service of process did not preempt California’s specific law concerning service of a notice of levy against a deposit account
• holding that under Rule 69(a)’s direction that federal law governs when applicable, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4.1 for service of process did not preempt California’s specific law concerning service of a notice of levy against a deposit account
• noting that even in light of (1) the large “size of the judgment” of nearly $2 billion; (2) the “prominent figures” as litigants; (3) the distant location of assets; and (4
• noting that even in light of (1) the large “size of the judgment” of nearly $2 billion; (2) the “prominent figures” as litigants; (3) the distant location of assets; and (4
• noting that even in light of (1) the large “size of the judgment” of nearly $2 billion; (2) the “prominent figures” as litigants; (3) the distant location of assets; and (4
• applying Rule 4.1’s marshal requirement to a class of plaintiffs’ service of a notice of levy against a defendant’s deposit account

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).