Republic of Philippines v. Pimentel | |
---|---|
Argued March 17, 2008 Decided June 12, 2008 | |
Full case name | Republic of Philippines et al. v. Jerry S. Pimentel, temporary administrator of the Estate of Mariano J. Pimentel, deceased, et al. |
Docket no. | 06-1204 |
Citations | 553 U.S. 851 (more) 128 S. Ct. 2180; 171 L. Ed. 2d 131 |
Argument | Oral argument |
Opinion announcement | Opinion announcement |
Case history | |
Prior |
|
Subsequent | NY Slip Op 05208 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011) 973 N.E.2d 703 (N.Y. 2012) 681 F. App'x 37 (2d Cir. 2016) 14 Civ. 890 (KPF) (S.D.N.Y. 2018) et seq. |
Holding | |
Foreign sovereigns are "indispensable parties" under Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Kennedy, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito; Souter (all but Parts IV–B and V); Stevens (Part II) |
Concur/dissent | Stevens |
Concur/dissent | Souter |
Laws applied | |
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure |
Republic of Philippines v. Pimentel,[note 1] 553 U.S. 851 (2008), is a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States which clarified the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as regards money damages sought by a foreign government, the Republic of the Philippines, via its Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG). The case stemmed out of disputes surrounding one of the overseas investments and bank accounts of Ferdinand Marcos, Arelma S.A.. Marcos was President of the Philippines until being overthrown in the People Power Revolution.
Cite error: There are <ref group=note>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}}
template (see the help page).