Im no cactus expert but I know a prick when I see one shirt
I tried to research this but was faced with alot of legal terms and brief summaries. Does anyone have any key points of which Nestle argued as a Im no cactus expert but I know a prick when I see one shirt ? I would love to see how they try to justify something like this. the way large corporations’ lawyers manage to twist and spin things using language, narrow context and laws is nothing short of manipulative.
![Im no cactus expert but I know a prick when I see one shirt 3 Im no cactus expert but I know a prick when I see one hoodie, sweater, longsleeve, shirt v-neck, t-shirt](https://img.teeclover.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Im-no-cactus-expert-but-I-know-a-prick-when-I-see-one-shirt-1.jpg)
![Im no cactus expert but I know a prick when I see one shirt 4 Im no cactus expert but I know a prick when I see one hoodie, sweater, longsleeve, shirt v-neck, t-shirt](https://img.teeclover.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Im-no-cactus-expert-but-I-know-a-prick-when-I-see-one-shirt-3.jpg)
![Im no cactus expert but I know a prick when I see one shirt 5 Im no cactus expert but I know a prick when I see one hoodie, sweater, longsleeve, shirt v-neck, t-shirt](https://img.teeclover.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Im-no-cactus-expert-but-I-know-a-prick-when-I-see-one-shirt-2.jpg)
Best Im no cactus expert but I know a prick when I see one shirt
Nestlé USA v. Doe has been going in for over a decade, and the case has been dropped twice before being brought back by Im no cactus expert but I know a prick when I see one shirt ? . Nestlé argued, both times, that the Alien Tort Statute does not apply to corporations.The exact scope of the Alien Tort Statute is debatable, but it’s entire text follows:”The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.”In December, Nestlé USA v. Doe finally reached the Supreme Court. Nestlé’s representative, Neal Katyal, argued that the company could not be held liable because the ATS does not apply to corporations, the same argument Nestlé made in lower courts.