Fernando Razo v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that plaintiffs could not attach Iranian property under 28 U.S.C. § 1610 (g
• explaining that the FSIA provides “certain express exceptions” to foreign sovereign immunity
• noting that the State Department had expressed such a concern
• discussing \attachment and execution immunity\ in relation to FSIA terrorism exception, 28 U.S.C. § 1605A
• noting that “one of the most basic interpretive canons is that a statute should be construed 16 so that effect is given to all its provisions, so that no part will be inoperative or superfluous, void, 17 or insignificant”
• rejecting a proposed reading of a statutory provision on the ground that if Congress wanted the provision to have the claimed effect “it knew how to say so”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).