Skip to main content
Ninth Circuit· 9/4/2014

John Doe I v. Nestle, USA

Citations

  • 766 F.3d 1013
  • 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 17429
  • 2014 WL 4358453

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 violation of the “prohibition against slavery” gives rise to a claim under the ATS
  • finding that prohibition of slavery is a universal norm of international law
  • granting plaintiffs leave to amend their pleadings to allege that some of the activity underlying their ATS claim took place in the United States
  • stating that “the absence of decisions finding corporations liable does not imply that corporate liability is a legal impossibility under international law ... and ... that the lack of decisions holding corporations liable could be explained by strategic considerations”
  • remanding with instructions to allow plaintiffs to amend their complaint in light of relevant cases decided while an appeal was pending
  • stating that “the absence of decisions finding corporations liable does not imply that corporate liability is a legal impossibility under international law . . . and . . . that the lack of decisions holding corporations liable could be explained by strategic considerations”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Nelson, Wardlaw, Rawlinson

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

27 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

26 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named John Doe I v. Nestle, USA

4 other CourtListener records share this case name.

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.