Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T20:30:58.928Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Farr.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2017

John R. Stevenson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Keywords

Act of state doctrine—legislationremoving bar imposed by doctrine to judicial determination of validity under international law of foreign sovereign act, held constitutional and applicable to cases pending at the time of enactment, including “Sabbatino” case
Type
Judicial Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 60 , Issue 1 , January 1966 , pp. 107 - 120
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1966 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Assisted by John E. Donnelly, Cornelius B. Prior, Jr., and William J. Williams, Jr., of the New York Bar.

References

** Excerpted text of opinion; certain footnotes and citations omitted.

*** Supreme Court's opinion printed in excerpted form at 58 A.J.I.L. 779 (1964); Court of Appeals' opinion at 56 ibid. 1085 (1962); District Court's opinion at 55 ibid. 741 (1961).

1 Subsequent to the decision of the Court of Appeals and before the decision of the Supreme Court, Sabbatino was discharged as receiver of C.A.V. and the funds in dispute were placed in escrow pending the outcome of this suit. After remand, pursuant to stipulation of the parties, the action was discontinued as against Sabbatino and the title was amended to name as defendants only the co-partners doing business as Farr, Whitlock & Co.