Hutira v. Islamic Republic of Iran

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the court did not need to address other factors when the plaintiff had not exhausted alternative sources because that factor weighed “so heavily in favor of quashing the subpoena”
• concluding that news articles are hearsay and that “[i]t would be wholly inappropriate to permit” a FSIA plaintiff “to satisfy the requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1608(e) by submitting an unsubstantiated newspaper article”
• concluding that news articles are hearsay and that “[t]t would be wholly inappropriate to permit” a FSIA plaintiff “to satisfy the requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1608(e) by submitting an unsubstantiated newspaper article”
• observing that even when a party “may have considerable difficulty obtaining the 10 information . . . [that] does not . . . relieve [the party] of trying initially to obtain the information elsewhere”
• granting motion to quash even though litigant \list[ed] specific things\ done to try to obtain information related to the alleged political assassination of her father
• granting motion to quash even though litigant “list[ed] specific things” done to try to obtain information related to the alleged political assassination of her father

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).