Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Dole Food Company v. Patrickson

538 U.S. 468 (2003)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 26,900+ case briefs...

Dole Food Company v. Patrickson

United States Supreme Court

538 U.S. 468 (2003)

Facts

Patrickson (plaintiff) and a group of farm workers from Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, and Panama, filed suit against Dole Food Company (Dole) (defendant) seeking relief for injuries allegedly caused by pesticides used in their home countries. Dole impleaded two other corporations, Dead Sea Bromine Co., Ltd., and Bromine Compounds, Ltd. (collectively, the Dead Sea Companies) (defendants). The farm workers filed suit in state court in Hawaii. The defendants sought removal of the case to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(d), which governs removal actions against foreign States and provides that “any civil action brought in a state court against a foreign State as defined [under § 1603(a) of the Foreign State Immunities Act (FSIA)] may be removed by the foreign state to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.” Section 1603(a) of the FSIA defines “foreign State” to include an “agency or instrumentality of a foreign State.” Additionally, “agency or instrumentality of a foreign State” is defined as an entity which is a separate legal person, corporate or otherwise; and which is an organ of a foreign State or political subdivision thereof, or a majority of whose shares or other ownership interest is owned by a foreign State or political subdivision thereof; and which is neither a citizen of a state of the United States nor created under the laws of any third country. The Dead Sea Companies argued that they were at all times instrumentalities of the State of Israel, and thus were entitled to the same sovereign immunity and removal rights as Israel under the FSIA. The court of appeals held that The Dead Sea Companies were merely a “subsidiary” of an instrumentality (Dole), and were not themselves entitled to instrumentality status. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Kennedy, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 541,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 541,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 26,900 briefs, keyed to 983 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 541,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 26,900 briefs - keyed to 983 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership