Mohammadi 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 there was an insufficient nexus to the territory or interests of the United States when the defendants were leaders of Iran and activities occurred in the sovereign territory of Iran
• acknowledging that there are “unresolved questions regarding the scope of a sovereign foreign state’s ability to engage in discretionary tortious conduct for political purposes in the United States”
• acknowledging that there are “unresolved questions regarding the scope of a sovereign foreign state’s ability to engage in discretionary tortious conduct for political purposes in the United States”
• dismissing ATS claims where alleged tortious conduct “occurred entirely within the sovereign territory of Iran”
• granting immunity to former Iranian officials because \the nature of the allegations in this case ... are essentially ... state actions performed at the direction of [the former officials]\
• “A Rule 59(e) motion is not a chance for a party to correct poor strategic choices, nor are such motions to be used by litigants to cry over spilled milk.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).