Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.
642 F.3d 379, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 26414, 2011 WL 338151
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit
DecidedFebruary 4, 2011
Docket06-4800-cv, 06-4876-cv
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases
This text of 642 F.3d 379 (Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 642 F.3d 379, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 26414, 2011 WL 338151 (2d Cir. 2011).
Opinions
[380]*380ORDER
Following disposition of this appeal on September 17, 2010, an active judge of the Court, together with a senior judge, requested a poll on whether to rehear the case in banc. A poll having been conducted and there being no majority favoring in banc review, rehearing in banc is hereby DENIED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Jesner v. Arab Bank
Second Circuit, 2015
In Re Arab Bank, PLC Alien Tort Statute Litigation
808 F.3d 144 (Second Circuit, 2015)
Mastafa v. Chevron Corp.
770 F.3d 170 (Second Circuit, 2014)
Balintulo v. Daimler AG
727 F.3d 174 (Second Circuit, 2013)
Liu Bo Shan v. China Construction Bank Corp.
421 F. App'x 89 (Second Circuit, 2011)
Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.
642 F.3d 379 (Second Circuit, 2011)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
642 F.3d 379, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 26414, 2011 WL 338151, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kiobel-v-royal-dutch-petroleum-co-ca2-2011.