State of New Hampshire v. Cody M. Frye

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 fourth element “must ... be resolved in the plaintiffs favor before the suit can proceed”
• concluding, without separate discussion of jurisdiction over Russia, that district court had jurisdiction over Russia because two of its instrumentalities held expropriated property and were engaged in a commercial activity in the United States
• characterizing the first three elements as jurisdictional and suggesting that they may be satisfied by the plaintiffs allegations so long as not “wholly insubstantial and frivolous”
• entering into contracts for the purpose of publishing and selling reproductions of historical documents and other materials in the United States deemed 5 commercial activity under the FSIA
• suggesting, but not deciding, that § 1605(a)(3) does not impose an exhaustion require- ment
• court separately analyzed the events surrounding seizures of two individual portions of a single collection of rabbinical books

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).