Hostname: page-component-68945f75b7-s56hc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-06T04:12:42.302Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Ramirez v. Weinberger. 745 F.2d 1500

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Judicial Decisions
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1985

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.)

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.