Liu v. Republic of China
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
892 F.2d 1419 (1989)
- Written by David Bloom, JD
Facts
Henry Liu (plaintiff), was a journalist living in California and an outspoken critic of the Republic of China (China) (defendant). Vice-Admiral Wong His-ling (Wong), the director of a Chinese government agency, the Defense Intelligence Bureau (DIB), secretly recruited members of a gang to kill Henry. Wong allowed the gang members to use government facilities, sent them to a DIB training school, and provided information about Henry compiled by DIB. The gang members travelled to the United States and shot and killed Henry at his home. Wong and the gang members were later convicted of murder and conspiracy in China. The Chinese courts found that Wong had a personal grudge against Henry, had acted without the knowledge of any other government officials, and had violated DIB regulations and China law. Helen Liu (plaintiff), Liu’s widow, sued China in United States federal court for wrongful-death damages, claiming that China had conspired with Wong to kill Henry and that Wong had acted within the scope of his employment with the DIB. Helen moved for partial summary judgment. The district court denied the motion and dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Helen appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Boochever, 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.