Jackson v. People’s Republic of China
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
794 F.2d 1490 (1986)
In 1982, Russell Jackson (plaintiff) obtained a federal district court’s judgment that the People’s Republic of China (PRC) (defendant) owed Jackson payment on bonds issued in 1911 by China’s former imperial government. The PRC asserted absolute sovereign immunity against Jackson’s attempts to enforce the judgment and petitioned the district court for relief. The United States Department of State (state department) backed the PRC’s petition by officially notifying the court that the judgment was a major impediment to improving relations with the PRC. In light of the state department’s position, the court granted the PRC’s petition and set aside its judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6). Jackson appealed to the Eleventh Circuit.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Godbold, C.J.)
What to do next…
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 725,000 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
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 725,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,600 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.