No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 February 2017
1 Defendant appealed Judge Fong’s ruling to the Ninth Circuit and obtained a stay of the order pending appeal. The Ninth Circuit has agreed to expedite the appeal. In the meantime, other courts have addressed similar issues and reached different results. For example, on June 17, 1986, Judge Pfaelzer in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California issued a preliminary injunction in a suit brought by the Philippine Government, Republic of the Philippines v. Marcos (No. 86–3859), prohibiting Marcos from receiving or obtaining possession of various property. It is not clear whether Judge Pfaelzer’s order applies to property in dispute in Azurin v. Von Raab.
2 No. 86-0189, slip op. at 6.
3 Id. at 7. In finding for the plaintiff, the court implicitly accepted plaintiff’s position that defendant had a duty to release the property. However, the court never clearly identified the precise law upon which defendant’s duty was based. In the end, the court appears to have relied on defendant’s own admission that once the Customs Service determined that the goods could enter the country legally, it had a duty to release the goods.
4 Id. at 14–15.
5 Id. at 15.
6 Id. at 19.
7 Id.
8 Id. at 20.
9 Id. at 21.