Risk v. Halvorsen
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
936 F.2d 393 (1991)
- Written by Mary Katherine Cunningham, JD
Facts
Larry Risk (plaintiff) married Elisabeth Antonsen Risk (Antonsen), a citizen of Norway, in 1977. In 1983, Risk and Antonsen moved to Norway with their two children. When Risk attempted to bring the children back to the United States, Antonsen received an order from a Norwegian court providing Risk with visitation rights. During the first visitation period, Risk returned to the United States with the children. In 1984, Antonsen filed a custody petition for the children, and the Superior Court of San Francisco awarded joint custody to the parents and prohibited Risk and Antonsen from removing the children from five counties in the San Francisco Bay area. The superior court also required the parties to surrender their children’s passports and prohibited Risk and Antonsen from applying for replacement passports without a court order. In July 1984, Antonsen returned to Norway with the children with help from Norwegian officials. In April 1988, Risk filed a lawsuit, alleging Norwegian government and consular officials (defendants) violated the California custody order by providing Antonsen with financial aid and travel documents necessary to return to Norway. The district court rejected jurisdiction over Norway under the discretionary-function exception in Section 1605(a)(5) of the Federal Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA).
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Brunetti, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.