No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Garcia v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. 735 F.2d 645
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 February 2017
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.
- Type
- Judicial Decisions
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of International Law 1985
References
1 735 F.2d 645, 649.
2 Id. at 650 (relying upon Vishipco Line v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A., 660 F.2d 854 (2d Cir. 1981), summarized in 76 AJIL 385 (1982), cert, denied, 459 U.S. 976 (1982)).
3 735 F. 2d at 651.
4 See, e.g., Vishipco Line v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A., 660 F.2d 854 (2d Cir. 1981), summarized in 76 AJIL 385 (1982), cert, denied, 459 U.S. 976 (1982); United States v. First Nat’l City Bank, 321 F.2d 14 (2d Cir. 1963), rev’d on other grounds, 379 U.S. 378 (1965); Sokoloffv. National City Bank of New York, 130 Misc. 66, 224 N.Y.S. 102 (Sup. Ct. 1927), affd, 250 N.Y. 69 (1928); Heininger, , Liability of U.S. Banks for Deposits Placed in Their Foreign Branches 11 Law & Pol’y Int’l Bus. 903 (1979)Google Scholar.
5 660 F.2d 854 (2d Cir. 1981), cert, denied, 459 U.S. 976 (1982).
6 463 N.E.2d5(N.Y. 1984).
7 The court found that the Hickenlooper Amendment exception to the act of state doctrine did not apply since “confiscations by a foreign State of the property of its own nationals within its borders . . . [is] ‘not contrary to international law.’ “ Id. at 10 (citation omitted).
8 Id. at 11 (Wachtler, J., dissenting).