Opinion · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
McKesson HBOC, Inc. v. Islamic Republic of Iran
320 F.3d 280
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 2003-03-07
- Topic
- general
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT –———— Filed On: March 7, 2003 No. 00–7157 MCKESSON HBOC, INC., ET AL., APPELLEES v. ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN, APPELLANT FINANCIAL ORGANIZATION FOR THE EXPANSION OF OWNERSHIP OF PRODUCTIVE UNITS, ET AL., APPELLEES –———— Consolidated with No. 00–7263 –———— BEFORE: EDWARDS, ROGERS, and TATEL, Circuit Judges. ORDER Upon consideration of appellant’s motion to recall the man- date, the responses thereto, the replies, and the notice of recent development, it is ORDERED that the mandate issued on March 13, 2002, be recalled and the Clerk of the District Court is directed to return the mandate forthwith. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the portion of the court’s opinion issued November 16, 2001, addressing whether the Treaty of Amity between the United States and Iran provides a private cause of action to a United States national against 2 Iran in a United States court, be vacated. On remand, the district court is to reexamine that issue in light of the representation of the United States that it does not interpret the Treaty of Amity to create such a cause of action.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed McKesson HBOC, Inc. v. Islamic Republic of Iran. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 10 opinions
ORDER
Upon consideration of appellant’s motion to recall the mandate, the responses thereto, the replies, and the notice of recent development, it is
ORDERED that the mandate issued on March 13, 2002, be recalled and the Clerk of the District Court is directed to return the mandate forthwith. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the portion of the court’s opinion issued November 16, 2001 [271 F.3d 1101], addressing whether the Treaty of Amity between the United States and Iran provides a private cause of action to a United States national against Iran in a United States court, be vacated. On remand, the district court is to reexamine that issue in light of the representation of the United States that it does not interpret the Treaty of Amity to create such a cause of action. See Brief for the Overseas Private Investment Corp. in Opposition to Certiorari, Islamic Republic of Iran v. McKesson HBOC, Inc., et al., — U.S. -, 123 S.Ct. 341, 154 L.Ed.2d 248 (2002).
The Clerk is directed to issue an amended judgment and the mandate forthwith.