October Term 2002 · Docket 01-593

Does owning parent stock count as owning subsidiary stock?

the sides that brought the case claim a foreign sovereign owns a subsidiary. the opposing sides say only direct shares count.

Official caption
Dole Food Co. v. Patrickson
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Mr. Paden argued the foreign sovereign owns the subsidiary.

    Mr. Massey argued parent stock does not equal subsidiary stock.

    Mr. Minear cited corporate law principles separating the entities.

    Justices questioned the consistency of the ownership claim.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

The case tests the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. It asks if parent stock equals subsidiary stock.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on January 22, 2003.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

the sides that brought the case want the Court to treat parent stock as subsidiary ownership.

the opposing sides want the Court to treat parent and subsidiary shares as distinct.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

the sides that brought the case argue the foreign sovereign owns the subsidiary through its parent.

the opposing sides argue corporate law separates parent and subsidiary shareholders.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Chief Justice Rehnquist asked if ownership capacity changed over time.

Justices questioned the relevance of recent corporate law decisions.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This defines sovereign immunity for foreign state-owned companies. It determines which entities gain legal protection in U.S. courts.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON