Devincci Hourani v. Alexander Mirtchev

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a defamation lawsuit was barred because it could not be decided “without a court having to inquire into the legal validity or tortiousness” of statements on the Kazakh embassy website
• holding ambassador’s statements constituted government action for purposes of act of state doctrine
• \Adjudicating the lawfulness of those acts of a foreign sovereign that are subject to the United States' territorial jurisdiction ... is not an issue that the Constitution entirely forbids the judiciary to entertain.\
• “Liudmila Kokorich cannot enforce 13 the arbitration provision in the DHIL Agreement for the same reasons that Mikhail Kokorich 14 cannot enforce that provision.”
• a party challenging an arbitration agreement on unconscionability 8 grounds must do so specifically with respect to the delegation provision to resist enforcement 9 thereof
• “The complaint claims that Mirtchev ‘published or caused these statements to be published,’ but it alleges no factual basis whatsoever for that charge.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).