Palicio Compania v. Brush, 375 F.2d 1011 (2d Cir. 1967). · Go Syfert
Search
Palicio Compania v. Brush, 375 F.2d 1011 (2d Cir. 1967). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
46 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 11 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Federal Republic of Germany v. Philipp (scotus, 2021-02-03)
Treatment trajectory · 1967 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1967 1996 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Federal Republic of Germany v. Philipp
SCOTUS · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
See F. Palicio y 8 FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY v. PHILIPP Opinion of the Court Compania, S. A. v. Brush, 256 F. Supp. 481, 487 (SDNY 1966) (interpreting the Hickenlooper Amendment to dis- place Sabbatino but dismissing the suit on the ground that “confiscations by a state of the property of its own nationals, no matter how flagrant . . . , do not constitute violations of international law”), summarily aff ’d, 375 F. 2d 1011 (CA2 1967); Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Farr, 383 F. 2d 166 , 173– 176 (CA2 1967); Restatement (Second) of Foreign Relations Law of the United States §185 (1965) (Re…
cited Cited "see" Federal Treasury Enterprise Sojuzplodoimport v. Spirits International B.V.
unknown court · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See generally id. .
cited Cited "see" Bandes v. Harlow & Jones, Inc.
S.D.N.Y. · 1983 · signal: see · confidence high
See, F. Palicio y Companía, S.A. v. Brush, 256 F.Supp. 481, 488 (S.D.N.Y.1966), aff'd 375 F.2d 1011 (2d Cir.1967).
discussed Cited "see" Banco Nacional De Cuba v. First National City Bank of NY
S.D.N.Y. · 1967 · signal: see · confidence high
Republic of Iraq v. First National City Bank, supra; see F. Palicio y Compania v. Brush, 256 F.Supp. 481 (S.D.N.Y. 1966), aff’d per curiam, 375 F.2d 1011 (2d Cir. 1967); see Note, International Conflict of Laws: Limitations Imposed On Effect American Courts May Give Foreign Confiscations, 1966 Duke L.J. 828 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Glen v. Club Méditerranée S.A.
S.D. Fla. · 2005 · signal: see also · confidence low
Kirkpatrick, noted that the act of state doctrine is not some vague doctrine of abstention but a “principle of decision binding on federal and state courts alike,” whereby “the act within its own boundaries of one sovereign State ... becomes .... a rule of decision for the courts of this country.” 493 U.S. at 406 , 110 S.Ct. 701 ; see, e.g., Sabbatino, 376 U.S. at 439 , 84 S.Ct. 923 (act of state doctrine “proscribe[d] a challenge to the Cuban expropriation decree”); Fogade, 263 F.3d at 1296 (act of state doctrine precluded challenge to confiscation by Venezuelan government); First…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." D'ANGELO v. Petroleos Mexicanos
D. Del. · 1976 · signal: see also · confidence low
A history of the litigation may be found in Mendez v. Gaber, Coe & Gregg, 345 F.Supp. 527 (S.D.N.Y.1972), Mendez v. Saks and Company, 485 F.2d 1355 (2d Cir. 1973) and Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc. v. Republic of Cuba, 425 U.S. 682 , 96 S.Ct. 1854 , 48 L.Ed.2d 301 (1976); see also Palicio v. Brush, 256 F.Supp. 481 (S.D.N.Y.1966), aff'd 375 F.2d 1011 (2d Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 830 , 88 S.Ct. 95 , 19 L.Ed.2d 88 (1967). 11 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
F. Palicio Y Compania, S.A., Cifuentes Y Compania, Por Larranaga, S.A., Menendez, Garcia Y Compania, Limitada, and Tabacalera Jose L. Piedra, S.A., Plaintiffs-Appellants-Appellees
v.
Gilbert P. Brush and Monroe Percy Bloch, Co-Partners, Doing Business Under the Firm Name and Style of Brush & Bloch, Defendants-Appellants-Appellees
30984_1.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Apr 26, 1967.
375 F.2d 1011
Published

375 F.2d 1011

154 U.S.P.Q. 75

F. PALICIO Y COMPANIA, S.A., Cifuentes Y compania, Por
Larranaga, S.A., Menendez, Garcia Y compania,
Limitada, and Tabacalera Jose L. Piedra,
S.A., Plaintiffs-Appellants-Appellees,
v.
Gilbert P. BRUSH and Monroe Percy Bloch, co-partners, doing
business under the firm name and style of Brush &
Bloch, Defendants-Appellants-Appellees.

No. 415, Docket 30984.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued April 17, 1967.
Decided April 26, 1967.

Leonard B. Boudin, New York City (Rabinowitz & Boudin, New Victor Rabinowitz, New York City, on the brief), for plaintiffs-appellants-appellees.

Jac M. Wolff, New York City (Brush & Bloch, New York City, Monroe Percy Bloch, New York City, on the brief), for defendants-appellants-appellees.

Before MOORE, KAUFMAN and FEINBERG, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Having considered the various points raised by plaintiffs-appellants-appellees and defendants-appellants-appellees, we are of the opinion that Judge Bryan's discussion of the facts and his analysis and application of the law are correct; we therefore affirm on the basis of his well reasoned opinion reported at 256 F.Supp. 481 (S.D.N.Y.1966).