Final answer:
Without specific information on Schultz v. Capital International Security Incorporated, it's impossible to categorize it directly; however, using related legal precedents, it is clear that American law can involve complex jurisdictional issues and First Amendment debates, like those seen in Breard v. Greene and Schenck v. United States.
Step-by-step explanation:
The case Schultz v. Capital International Security Incorporated is not detailed in the provided references, nor is it a widely recognized landmark case that would fall within common legal knowledge as of the current time. However, based on general understanding and similar case precedents, such as Breard v. Greene, it's apparent that issues around jurisdiction and legal procedures in American courts, especially pertaining to cases involving foreign entities or individuals, can be complex. Breard v. Greene underscores that the International Court of Justice does not have jurisdiction in capital punishment cases involving foreign nationals in the United States, indicating the primacy of U.S. domestic law in such matters.
Regarding Schenck's actions, the provided reference to Schenck v. United States reflects a significant First Amendment debate. This was a landmark case where the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Schenck's distribution of anti-conscription leaflets during wartime did not enjoy First Amendment protection due to the "clear and present danger" it posed. This decision established that free speech could be limited when it presents a direct threat to the country's safety or security.
In criminal cases, a heuristic derived from these examples would suggest that the question of whether a case was dismissed or was a criminal proceeding depends on the specific context and legal arguments presented before the court. While we cannot definitively categorize Schultz v. Capital International Security Incorporated without further information, these historical cases provide insights into similar legal questions and outcomes.