Cases

FLETCHER, Circuit Judge: This appeal arises out of proceedings to enforce a judgment of nearly $2 billion against the Estate of Ferdinand E. Marcos in favor of nearly 10,000 class plaintiffs (referred to hereinafter collectively as “Hilao”) who suffered (or are family members of those who suffered) torture, “disappearance”, and summary execution during Marcos’ tenure as president

536 F.3d 980 (2008) In re ESTATE OF FERDINAND E. MARCOS HUMAN RIGHTS LITIGATION, Celsa Hilao, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Estate of Ferdinand Marcos, Defendant-Appellee, Revelstoke Investment Corporation, Inc., Applicant for Intervention and Appellant. No. 06-16301. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted June 17, 2008. Filed July 31,

LAW LEB:‘;}AH`Y No. 2985O IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIY[ i"'j?'j F'*'~.§ MAXlMO HILAO, Class Plaintiffs, Plaintiffh‘ §§ "Fc:-.' vs. :“ Ww , co § ESTATE OF FERDINAND E. MARCOS; IMELDA R. MARCQ; ,~d .v §§ FERDINAND R. MARCOS, Representatives of tdi §§ §§ Estate of Ferdinand E. Marcos, Defendants?H§ 17 533 if ORlGINAL PROCEEDING_ ORDER DECLlNING CERTlFIED QUESTION (By: Moon, C.J., Nakayama, Duffy, and Recktenwald, JJ. and Intermediate Court of Appeals Judge Leonard, in

GRABER, Circuit Judge: The Republic of the Philippines appeals from two orders issued by the district court, even though the Republic is not a party to this litigation. The first “Memorandum and Order” reinstates a 1999 settlement agreement between the Estate of Ferdinand E. Marcos and a class of plaintiffs who had sued the Estate for violations of their human rights. The second “Order Directing Compliance” facilitates the

FLETCHER, Circuit Judge: Imelda R. Marcos and Ferdinand R. Marcos, substituted under Rule 25 as representatives of the Defendant Estate of Ferdinand E. Marcos (“the Appellants”), appeal from orders of the district court holding them in contempt.- We affirm. FACTUAL BACKGROUND & PROCEDURAL HISTORY This appeal aris

FLETCHER, Circuit Judge: Jose Maria Sisón and Jaime Piopongco appeal from various rulings of the district court in the trial of their claims against the Estate of Ferdinand E. Marcos for damages incurred when human-rights abuses were inflicted upon them in the Philippines during Marcos’ tenure as president. We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm in part and reverse in part.

FLETCHER, Circuit Judge: These appeals concern whether a United States court properly enjoined the Republic of the Philippines from entering into agreements with the Estate of former Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos to transfer to the Philippines assets of the Estate that the Republic asserts were looted from the Philippines treasury. The plaintiff class (“Hilao”), a group of 10,000 people who allege that they or their

Opinion by Judge TANG. TANG, Senior Circuit Judge: OVERVIEW Defendant Estate of Ferdinand Marcos (“the Estate”) appeals from the district court’s order preliminarily enjoining the Estate from transferring, secreting or dissipating the Estate’s assets “pendente lite. On this interlocutory appeal, the Estate also challenges the district court’s subject matter jurisdiction un

397 F.3d 768 In re PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK,Philippine National Bank, Petitioner,v.United States District Court for the District of Hawaii, Respondent,Maximo Hilao; Estate of Ferdinand Marcos; Imelda R. Marcos; Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr., Real Parties in Interest. No. 04-71843. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted June 16, 2004.</

OPINION FLETCHER, Circuit Judge: The Estate of Ferdinand E. Marcos appeals from a final judgment entered against it in a class-action suit after a trifurcated jury trial on the damage claims brought by a class of Philippine nationals (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Hilao”) who were victims of torture, “disappearance”, or summary execution under the regime of Ferdinand E. Marcos. We have jurisdictio

393 F.3d 987 Maximo HILAO, Class Plaintiff, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.ESTATE OF Ferdinand MARCOS; Imelda R. Marcos; and Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr., Defendants-Appellees.Republic of the Philippines, Real Party in Interest-Appellant. No. 03-16934. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted November 3, 2004. Filed December 2

25 F.3d 1467 In re ESTATE OF FERDINAND MARCOS, HUMAN RIGHTS LITIGATION.Maximo HILAO, et al., Class Plaintiffs; Vicente Clemente,et al., Class Plaintiffs; Jaime Piopongco, etal., Class Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs-Appellees,v.ESTATE OF Ferdinand MARCOS, Defendant-Appellant. No. 92-15526. United States Court of Appeals,Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Ma

94 F.3d 539 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6256, 96 Daily JournalD.A.R. 10,256In re ESTATE OF FERDINAND MARCOS HUMAN RIGHTS LITIGATION.Maximo HILAO, Class Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs-Appellees,v.ESTATE OF Ferdinand MARCOS, Defendant,Republic of the Philippines, a non-party specificallyidentified as subject to the preliminaryinjunction, Appellant.In re ESTATE OF FERDINAND MARCOS HUMAN RIGHTS LITIGATION.Maximo HILAO, Class

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT In re: ESTATE OF FERDINAND E.  MARCOS HUMAN RIGHTS LITIGATION, CELSA HILAO, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 06-16301 v.  D.C. No. MDL-00840-MLR ESTATE OF FERDINAND MARCOS, Defendant-Appellee, OPINION REVELSTOKE INVESTMENT CORPORATION, INC. Applicant for In

963 P.2d 1124 (1998) 88 Hawai`i 148 In the Matter of the ESTATE OF Ferdinand Edralin MARCOS, deceased. No. 20885. Supreme Court of Hawai`i. September 16, 1998. *1125 Arthur B. Reinwald of Reinwald, O'Connor & Playdon, Bruce L. Lamon, Raymond K. Okada and Judy Y. Lee of Goodsill, Anderson, Quinn & Stifel, a

103 F.3d 789 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9101, 96 Daily JournalD.A.R. 15,080Maximo HILAO, Class Plaintiffs, Plaintiff,andJose Maria Sison; Jaime Piopongco; Ramon Sison, Dr.;Estate of Francisco Sison; Estate of FlorentinaSison; Estate of Amelia Sison,Plaintiffs-Appellants,v.ESTATE OF Ferdinand MARCOS, Defendant-Appellee. No. 95-16779. United States Court of Appeal

659 F.3d 1276 (2011) Ferdinand DE LEON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Imelda R. MARCOS; Ferdinand R. Marcos; Denman Investment Corporation, Inc., Defendants-Appellees. No. 10-1578. United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit. October 31, 2011. *1277 Submitted on the briefs:[*] Robert A. Swift, Kohn, Swift & Graf

309 F.3d 1143 In re REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES;In re Presidential Commission on Good Government,The Republic of the Philippines; Presidential Commission on Good Government, Petitioners,v.United States District Court for the District of Hawaii, Respondent,Arelma Inc.; Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.; Suntrust Investment Co., S.A.; John K. Burns; Estate of Ferdinand E. Marcos, ImeldaR. Marcos, Ferdinand

969 P.2d 1209 (1998) 89 Hawai`i 91 Roger ROXAS and The Golden Budha Corporation, a foreign corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-Appellants, v. Ferdinand E. MARCOS and Imelda Marcos, Defendants-Appellants/Cross-Appellees. No. 20606. Supreme Court of Hawai`i. November 17, 1998. Reconsideration Denied January 28, 1999.

ORDER LONGSTAFF, Chief Judge. The Court has before it plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, filed April 2, 2001. Certain defendants1 filed their resistance memorandum on May 21, 2001, and plaintiffs filed their reply memorandum on June 7, 2001. The Court held a hearing on June 21, 2001 and the motion is fully submitted. I. BACKGROUND Th