Ingram v. Harry

How courts have described this case

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

• vacating Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 654 F.3d 11 (D.C. Cir. 2011), but expressly preserving the part of the 2011 opinion discussing plaintiffs’ non-federal tort claims
• vacating Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corp. , 654 F.3d 11 (D.C. Cir. 2011), but expressly preserving the part of the 2011 opinion discussing plaintiffs' non-federal tort claims
• “[I]n light of intervening 6 changes in governing law regarding the extraterritorial reach of the Alien Tort Statute, see [Kiobel II], . . . the Alien Tort Statute claims [are] remanded to the District Court for further consideration.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).