Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Sosa Vs. Alvarez-machain

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 29, 2004

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

72 entries 5 linked 67 unlinked
Show
  1. United States Vs. Alvarez-machain US Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1992
  2. United States Vs. Spelar US Supreme Court · Nov 07, 1949
  3. Ware Vs. Hylton US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1796
  4. Alexander Vs. Sandoval US Supreme Court · Apr 24, 2001
  5. Correctional Services Corp. Vs. Malesko US Supreme Court · Nov 27, 2001
  6. Syllabus October Term, 2003 Sosa V. Alvarez-Machain
    Search
  7. Supreme Court of the United States Sosa V. Alvarez-Machain
    Search
  8. role in making common law. In Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins
    Search
  9. a private right of action is better left to legislative judgment in most cases. E.g., Correctional Services Corp. v. Malesko
    Search
  10. and Bivens v. Six
    Search
  11. et al., also on certiorari to the same court. Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain
    Search
  12. Opinion of the Court Sosa V. Alvarez-Machain
    Search
  13. entitled to a remedy under either statute. I We have considered the underlying facts before, United States v. Alvarez-Machain
    Search
  14. Richards v. United
    Search
  15. Sami v. United
    Search
  16. Cominotto v. United
    Search
  17. Beattie v. United
    Search
  18. States , 756 F. 2d 91, 119 (CADC 1984) (Scalia, J., dissenting). Legal malpractice claims, Knisley v. United
    Search
  19. SD Ohio 1993), allegations of negligent medical care, Newborn v. United
    Search
  20. DC 2002), and even slip-and-fall cases, Eaglin v. United
    Search
  21. courts generally applied the law of the place where the injury occurred. See Richards v. United
    Search
  22. s liability. See, e.g. , Day & Zimmermann, Inc. v. Challoner
    Search
  23. Thomas v. FMC
    Search
  24. Quandt v. Beech
    Search
  25. Manos v. Trans
    Search
  26. see also, e.g. , Dallas v. Whitney
    Search
  27. Cameron v. Vandergriff
    Search
  28. U. S. 217 , 221 (1949). See also Sami v. United
    Search
  29. Leaf v. United
    Search
  30. see, e.g., Raskin v. Allison
    Search
  31. frequently leads to the traditional application of the law of the jurisdiction of injury. See, e.g. , Dorman v. Emerson
    Search
  32. Bing v. Halstead
    Search
  33. IIT v. Vencap
    Search
  34. Black and White Taxicab & Transfer Co. v. Brown
    Search
  35. common law has come an equally significant rethinking of the role of the federal courts in making it. Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins
    Search
  36. of them defined by express congressional authorization to devise a body of law directly, e.g. , Textile Workers v. Lincoln
    Search
  37. order to create federal common law rules in interstitial areas of particular federal interest. E.g., United States v. Kimbell
    Search
  38. decision of particular importance to foreign relations, such as the act of state doctrine, see Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino
    Search
  39. right of action is one better left to legislative judgment in the great majority of cases. Correctional Services Corp. v. Malesko
    Search
  40. risks of adverse foreign policy consequences, they should be undertaken, if at all, with great caution. Cf. Tel-Oren v. Libyan
    Search
  41. see also Texas Industries, Inc. v. Radcliff
    Search
  42. we take today has been assumed by some federal courts for 24 years, ever since the Second Circuit decided Filartiga v. Pena-Irala
    Search
  43. s disagreement has been focused since the exchange between Judge Edwards and Judge Bork in Tel-Oren v. Libyan
    Search
  44. was enacted. See, e.g., United States v. Smith
    Search
  45. policeman who botches his warrant, even though that same officer might pay damages under municipal law. E.g., Groh v. Ramirez
    Search
  46. Id., at 637. Footnote 2 See also Couzado v. United
    Search
  47. quoting Donahue v. United
    Search
  48. Martinez v. Lamagno
    Search
  49. cf. Eaglin v. United
    Search
  50. In Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial