Chevron Corp. v. Donziger
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
974 F. Supp. 2d 362 (2014)
- Written by Heather Whittemore, JD
Facts
Steven Donziger (defendant) was an environmental attorney who obtained an $18 billion judgment on behalf of a group of indigenous Ecuadorians against Chevron in an Ecuadorian court. The judgment was related to Chevron’s alleged destruction of the Amazon rainforest around the Lago Agrio oil fields. Chevron filed a civil lawsuit against Donziger under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and sought injunctive relief to prevent the Ecuadorian judgment from being enforced, claiming that the judgment had been procured by Donziger and other attorneys through fraud. Chevron alleged that Donziger and his accomplices had coerced the Ecuadorian judge to find in his clients’ favor, submitted fraudulent evidence to the court, and hired a consulting firm to ghostwrite purported expert opinions to support his arguments. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York conducted a lengthy trial, hearing from dozens of witnesses. The court concluded that Chevron’s allegations against Donziger were true and that the judgment Donziger obtained on behalf of his clients was procured through fraud. Chevron sought equitable relief, requesting that the judgment Donziger obtained not be enforced.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kaplan, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
