{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017660044150110375, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.777070063694268, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Act of State Doctrine and Mandatory Jurisdiction Under the Penalty Wage Statute: Tismo v. M/V Ippolytos

This Comment argues that the act of state doctrine should not preclude the availability of mandatory jurisdiction under the penalty wage statute. Part I discusses the penalty wage statute and the act of state doctrine. Part II presents the factual and the procedural background of the Tismo decision. Part III argues that the court in Tismo erroneously applied the act of state doctrine to preclude the court’s mandatory jurisdiction under the penalty wage statute. This Comment concludes that U.S. courts should retain mandatory jurisdiction over both penalty wage statute claims and related pendent claims in order to protect the welfare of sailors and the interests of U.S. port states. THE ACT OF STATE DOCTRINE AND MANDATORY JURISDICTION UNDER THE PENALTY WAGE STATUTE: TISMO v. M/V IPPOLYTOS