N.D. California· 12/8/2004
Doe v. Liu Qi
Citations
- 349 F. Supp. 2d 1258
- 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25379
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- stating that where the conduct alleged in is sufficiently egregious, a CIDT claim is actionable
- finding that a superior subordinate relationship was established where one defendant had supervisory authority over perpetrators, and another defendant “played a major policy-making and supervisory role in the policies and practices that were carried out”
- noting that, in an ATS suit against Chinese local-government officials, China, “through the United States Department of State, submitted a letter to this Court urging this Court not to assert juris- diction over the instant cases”
- finding plaintiff subjected to mental torture under TVPA where forced to “witness the guards’ severe mistreatment of a close friend”
- holding service sufficient when 21 process server confronted defendant at the screening area of an airport, informed him that he had legal documents, attempted to hand them to the defendant’s entourage, and stated that “you have 22 been formally served”
- Finding a superior- subordinate relationship where defendant “played a major policy-making and supervisory role in the policies and practices that were carried out”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Wilken, Chen
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
34 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Landstar Ranger, Inc. v. PARTH ENTERPRISES, INC.C.D. California· 2010-07-19· cited 195×
- Vogel v. Rite Aid Corp.C.D. California· 2014-01-17· cited 157×
- Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of America v. BrennekeNinth Circuit· 2009-01-09· cited 92×
- Jane Doe v. Drummond Company, Inc.Eleventh Circuit· 2015-03-25· cited 84×
- Belhas v. Ya'AlonD.C. Circuit· 2008-02-15· cited 63×
- Sarei v. Rio Tinto, PLCNinth Circuit· 2008-12-16· cited 43×
- John Roe I v. Bridgestone Corp.S.D. Indiana· 2007-06-26· cited 41×
- Cashco Financial Services, Inc. v. McGee (In Re McGee)Ninth Circuit· 2006-12-06· cited 39×
- Mujica v. Occidental Petroleum Corp.C.D. California· 2005-06-28· cited 37×
- Al-Quraishi v. NakhlaD. Maryland· 2010-07-29· cited 33×
- Owens v. Republic of SudanDistrict of Columbia· 2005-03-29· cited 32×
- Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman Energy, Inc.S.D. New York· 2005-03-25· cited 27×
- Bowoto v. CHEVTON CORP.N.D. California· 2008-05-30· cited 20×
- Hurst v. Socialist People's Libyan Arab JamahiriyaDistrict of Columbia· 2007-02-01· cited 20×
- William v. AES Corp.E.D. Virginia· 2014-06-26· cited 19×
- Fisher v. GREAT SOCIALIST PEOPLE'S LIBYAN ARABDistrict of Columbia· 2008-03-27· cited 14×
- Doe I v. Cisco Systems, Inc.Ninth Circuit· 2023-07-07· cited 12×
- Sarei v. Rio Tinto PLCC.D. California· 2009-07-31· cited 9×
- Mamani v. BerzaínS.D. Florida· 2014-05-20· cited 9×
- Matar v. DichterS.D. New York· 2007-05-02· cited 8×
Cites
122 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs.Supreme Court· 1978-06-06· cited 41,449×
- Harlow v. FitzgeraldSupreme Court· 1982-06-24· cited 22,846×
- Anderson v. CreightonSupreme Court· 1987-06-25· cited 12,768×
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court· 1950-06-05· cited 10,395×
- Hudson v. McMillianSupreme Court· 1992-02-25· cited 8,199×
- Baker v. CarrSupreme Court· 1962-03-26· cited 6,173×
- Whitley v. AlbersSupreme Court· 1986-03-04· cited 6,155×
- Hal Roach Studios, Inc., a Delaware Corporation v. Richard Feiner and Company, Inc., a New York CorporationNinth Circuit· 1990-02-22· cited 2,784×
- Gary R. Eitel v. William D. McCoolNinth Circuit· 1986-01-14· cited 2,408×
- Idaho v. WrightSupreme Court· 1990-06-27· cited 2,081×
- Alvera M. Aldabe v. Charles D. AldabeNinth Circuit· 1980-04-30· cited 1,798×
- Larson v. Domestic and Foreign Commerce Corp.Supreme Court· 1949-10-10· cited 1,701×
- County of Riverside v. McLaughlinSupreme Court· 1991-05-20· cited 1,546×
- Sosa v. Alvarez-MachainSupreme Court· 2004-06-29· cited 1,133×
- Televideo Systems, Inc. K. Philip Hwang C. Gemma Hwang v. Fred P. Heidenthal, Individually and Dba South Harbor Investors and West Cliff SecuritiesNinth Circuit· 1987-09-02· cited 1,093×
- Rio Properties, Inc. v. Rio International Interlink, Rio Properties, Inc. v. Rio International InterlinkNinth Circuit· 2002-03-20· cited 1,036×
- Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp.Supreme Court· 1989-01-23· cited 993×
- Banco Nacional De Cuba v. SabbatinoSupreme Court· 1964-03-23· cited 984×
- Pepsico, Inc. v. California Security CansC.D. California· 2002-12-27· cited 933×
- Franklin v. MassachusettsSupreme Court· 1992-06-26· cited 868×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.