Cobble v. Cobb Cnty. Police Dep't

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that plaintiffs- appellants “do not dispute the district court’s determination that . . . Rastra Bank[, the central bank of Nepal,] is an agency or instrumentality of a foreign state”
• freezing of assets under \routine law enforcement action\ did not constitute a violation of international law
• “[A] plaintiff must cite more than tangential commercial activities to which the ‘acts’ forming the basis of the claim have only an attenuated connection.”
• “the complaint’s conclusory criticisms of the manner in which Nepal has conducted its investigation are insufficient to prove a violation of international law.”
• “[C]onclusory criticisms of the manner in which [a sovereign] has conducted [an] investigation are insufficient to prove a violation of international law.”
• “Plaintiffs cite no authority suggesting that a freeze of assets for a two year period—while an active criminal investigation is proceeding—constitutes a taking for purposes of the ‘takings’ exception of the FSIA.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).