Michael E. Waterman 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 judgment was final because “if this court were to affirm, . . . plaintiffs would be entitled to the $100,000,000 damages identified in the judgment and could sue for enforcement”
• stating that \aiding and abetting an act of international terrorism requires more than the provision of material support to a designated terrorist organization \ (emphasis in original)
• stating that ʺaiding and abetting an act of international terrorism requires more than the provision of material support to a designated terrorist organizationʺ (emphasis in original)
• indicating that a jury might be able to find substantial assistance where bank provided financial services and there was some evidence that, before the attacks at issue, the bank that \the transfers being requested therein were payments for suicide bombings\
• \aiding and abetting focuses on the relationship between the act of international terrorism and the secondary actor's alleged supportive conduct\
• “[A]iding and abetting an act of international terrorism requires more than the provision of material support to a designated terrorist organization.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).