- The Haifa Case in Israel: Corrie vs. the State of Israel & Ministry of Defense
- The Nazareth Case in Israel: Corrie vs. the State of Israel, Abu Kabir Forensic Institute, Prof. Yehuda Hiss, and the court of Rishon Letzion
- The U.S. Caterpillar Case: Corrie et al. vs. Caterpillar, Inc.
Corrie vs. State of Israel & Ministry of Defense
A wrongful-death lawsuit charging the State of Israel and the Ministry of Defense with the intentional and unlawful killing of Rachel Corrie
Brief Description: The lawsuit, filed in Haifa’s District Court in 2005 by Attorney Hussein abu Hussein on behalf of the Corrie family, charges the State of Israel and Ministry of Defense with responsibility for the killing of Rachel Corrie and for failing to conduct a full and credible investigation in the case.
The complaint argues intentional and unlawful killing, with violations of Rachel’s constitutional rights (right to life, dignity), as anchored in international humanitarian and human rights law, as well as in Israel’s Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty. Alternatively, the lawsuit claims that the State is liable for gross negligence in the actions of Israeli soldiers and military commanders who recklessly used an armored bulldozer without due regard and due diligence to the presence of unarmed and nonviolent civilian protesters, and who failed to take appropriate and necessary measures to protect Rachel’s life, in violation of their obligations under both Israeli and international law.
Status: Verdict rendered. See Rachel Corrie Foundation’s trial page for detailed coverage.
Israeli Supreme Court to hear oral appeal arguments on May 21, 2014. Hearing scheduled for 11:30 AM in Jerusalem.
Corrie vs. Abu Kabir Forensic Institute, Prof Yehuda Hiss, the Court of Rishon Letzion, and the State of Israel
A negligence lawsuit charging mishandling in the Rachel Corrie autopsy.
Brief Description: Court filings are in Hebrew. English description is currently unavailable. The lawsuit, filed in 2010 in Israel’s Nazareth Magistrate’s Court, charges the State of Israel, the Abu Kabir Forensic Institute, Professor Yehuda Hiss, and the Court of Rishon Letzion with mishandling of Rachel Corrie’s autopsy.
Status: Early motions phase. Let of appeal was filed and remains pending. A decision from the higher court would determine whether or not the case may proceed to trail.
The U.S. Caterpillar Case: Corrie et al. vs Caterpillar
A civil lawsuit filed in U.S. federal court against Illinois-based Caterpillar, Inc. on behalf of the parents of Rachel Corrie and on behalf of Palestinians whose family members were killed or injured when bulldozers demolished their homes on top of them.
Brief Description: Corrie v. Caterpillar charges Caterpillar, Inc. with aiding and abetting war crimes and other serious human rights violations on the grounds that the company provided bulldozers to the Israeli military knowing they would be used unlawfully to demolish homes and endanger civilians in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT). It charges Caterpillar, Inc. with violations of state, federal, and international law for complicity in war crimes, extrajudicial killing and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. The international law-based claims were brought under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) and the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA). Additionally, the suit charges Caterpillar with violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, wrongful death, public nuisance, and negligence.
The lawsuit was filed on March 15, 2005 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington by the Center for Constitutional Rights, the Ronald A. Peterson Law Clinic at Seattle University School of Law, the Public Interest Law Group PLLC in Seattle, and the Palestinian Center for Human Rights on behalf of the Corrie, Al Sho’bi, Abu Hussein, Fayed, and Khalafallah families,
Status: Case closed. The US. Federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of the case on the grounds that the courts did not have jurisdiction to decide the case because adjudication would intrude upon the foreign policy decision making authority granted to the political branches of government under the U.S. Constitution. This legal argument is commonly known in U.S. law as the “Political Question Doctrine”.