No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Gerritsen v. De La Madrid
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 February 2017
Abstract
![Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'](https://static.cambridge.org/content/id/urn%3Acambridge.org%3Aid%3Aarticle%3AS0002930000215066/resource/name/firstPage-S0002930000215066a.jpg)
Keywords
- Type
- Judicial Decisions
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of International Law 1987
References
1 The staff’s alleged acts included striking Gerritsen with a heavy metal object, threatening him with a club and a gun, kidnapping and interrogating him, and forcibly taking his leaflets and camera. 819 F.2d 1511, 1513.
2 See Williams v. United States, 405 F.2d 951, 954 (9th Cir. 1969); 5 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure §1206 (1969).
The court noted that an allegation that all of the defendants are aliens would confer diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1332 and that the appellant must be permitted to amend his complaint accordingly if all of the defendants are aliens. 819 F.2d at 1515 n.4.
3 Apr. 24, 1963, 21 UST 77, TIAS No. 6820, 596 UNTS 261 [hereinafter Vienna Convention]. “The Vienna Convention is the most recent and most authoritative treaty binding on both Mexico and the United States that deals with consular relations and consular immunity.” 819 F.2dat 1515.
4 Vienna Convention, supra note 3, Art. 43.
5 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(5) (1982).
6 729 F.2d 641, 647 (9th Cir.), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 917 (1984).