No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Ramirez v. Weinberger. 745 F.2d 1500
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 February 2017
Abstract
- Type
- Judicial Decisions
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of International Law 1985
References
1 568 F.Supp. 1236 (D.D.C. 1983).
2 724 F.2d 143 (D.C. Cir. 1983), summarized in 78 AJIL 446 (1984).
3 745 F.2d 1500, 1510 (citing Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952); Hooe v. United States, 218 U.S. 322 (1910); The Paquete Habana, 175 U.S. 677 (1900)).
4 444 U.S. 996 (1979).
5 Id. at 998.
6 745 F.2d at 1513.
7 369 U.S. 186 (1962).
8 745 F.2d at 1514 (relying upon 343 U.S. 579 (1952)).
9 745 F.2d at 1516. The court did not reach the question whether the Honduran corporations also have a constitutional right to judicial relief in U.S. courts for the alleged violations.
10 In addition, the court stated that certain legal obstacles may exist to an act of state defense, including the First Hickenlooper Amendment which sets limits on U.S. foreign assistance to countries that have expropriated the property of U.S. citizens without paying compensation. According to the court, if the Honduran Government had indeed acted and taken plaintiffs’ property, then the President could be in violation of this amendment requiring the United States to suspend foreign assistance to Honduras.
11 745F.2dat 1543.