Am. Isuzu Motors, Inc. v. Ntsebeza
Cases that cite this one
33 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Balintulo v. Daimler AG (2d Cir. 2013)
- Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corp. (D.C. Cir. 2011)
- In re South African Apartheid Litigation (District Court, S.D. New York 2009)
- Sarei v. Rio Tinto, PLC (9th Cir. 2011)
- Chowdhury v. Worldtel Bangladesh Holding, Ltd. (2d Cir. 2014)
- Comer v. Murphy Oil USA (5th Cir. 2010)
- United States v. Coleman (3d Cir. 2009)
- John Doe v. Nestle, S.A. (9th Cir. 2018)
- Aziz v. Alcolac, Inc. (4th Cir. 2011)
- Wultz v. Bank of China Ltd. (District Court, S.D. New York 2011)
- Sampson v. United States (1st Cir. 2013)
- United States v. Bennett (3d Cir. 2011)
- State v. Hess (N.J. 2011)
- State v. Rizzo (Conn. 2011)
- Rothstein v. UBS AG (District Court, S.D. New York 2009)
- Ntsebeza v. Daimler AG (District Court, S.D. New York 2009)
- Weisberg v. Yellen (United States District Court for the District of Connecticut 2024)
- Doe I v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (9th Cir. 2023)
- Owens v. Taliban (District Court, S.D. New York 2022)
- Appel v. Hayut (District Court, S.D. New York 2021)
- Chien v. Barron (2d Cir. 2020)
- John Doe v. Nestle, S.A. (9th Cir. 2019)
- Commonwealth v. Barnes (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017)
- Veracode, Inc. v. Appthority, Inc. (District Court, D. Massachusetts 2015)
- United States v. Arthur Anderson (6th Cir. 2012)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
AM. ISUZU MOTORS, INC., ET AL.
v.
LUNGISILE NTSEBEZA, ET AL.
Supreme Court of United States.
Because the Court lacks a quorum, 28 U.S.C. §1, and since a majority of the qualified Justices are of the opinion that the case cannot be heard and determined at the next Term of the Court, the judgment is affirmed under 28 U.S.C. §2109, which provides that under these circumstances the Court shall enter its order affirming the judgment of the court from which the case was brought for review with the same effect as upon affirmance by an equally divided Court. The Chief Justice, Justice Kennedy, Justice Breyer, and Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.