Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Soudavar v. Islamic Republic of Iran
Citation: 66 F. App'x 207Docket: No. 02-7130
Court: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit; June 10, 2003; Federal Appellate Court
The appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia is affirmed, with the decision grounded in the lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The appellant sought compensation from the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Sazman-e Gostaresh va Nowsazi-ye Sanaye Iran for the nationalization of property in 1979, claiming jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) and the Treaty of Amity. The court found that the FSIA’s "commercial activity" exception did not apply because Iran's 1999 compensation offer did not produce a "direct effect" in the U.S., as the appellant rejected the offer and Iran did not agree to make payments in the U.S. This conclusion aligns with precedents such as *Republic of Argentina v. Weltover*. Additionally, the court ruled that Articles III and IV of the Treaty of Amity do not create an exception to the FSIA, as the treaty does not "expressly conflict" with the FSIA, referencing *Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp.* and *Foremost-McKesson, Inc. v. Islamic Republic of Iran*. The disposition is not to be published according to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, and the Clerk will delay the issuance of the mandate for seven days following the resolution of any petitions for rehearing.