green
Positive treatment
5.3 score
Treatment trajectory · 1971 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1971
1998
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 17 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
Keystone Shipping Co. v. United States
See Marine Carriers Corp. v. Fowler, 429 F.2d 702, 706-07 (2d Cir.1970), cert. denied 400 U.S. 1020 , 91 S.Ct. 581 , 27 L.Ed.2d 631 (1971).
discussed
Cited "see"
Temistocles Ramirez De Arellano v. Caspar W. Weinberger, Secretary of Defense
(2×)
See Banco Nacional de Cuba v. First Nat'l City Bank, 431 F.2d 394, 399-402 (2d Cir.1970), vacated and remanded, 400 U.S. 1019 , 91 S.Ct. 581 , 27 L.Ed.2d 630 (1971), aff'd on remand, 442 F.2d 530 (2d Cir.1971), rev'd on other grounds, 406 U.S. 759 , 92 S.Ct. 1808 , 32 L.Ed.2d 466 (1972); Compania de Gas de Nuevo Laredo, S.A. v. Entex, 686 F.2d 322, 327 (5th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1041 , 103 S.Ct. 1435 , 75 L.Ed.2d 794 (1983) (relying solely on Banco Nacional de Cuba).
discussed
Cited "see"
Shreeves v. United States
See United States v. Tourine, 428 F.2d 865, 868-69 (2d Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 1020 , 91 S.Ct. 581 , 27 *787 L.Ed.2d 631 (1971); Schuermann v. United States, 174 F.2d 397, 401 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 338 U.S. 831 , 70 S.Ct. 69 , 94 L.Ed. 505 (1949).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. George H. Lustig, United States of America v. Gregory D. Pederson
See United States v. Tourine, 428 F.2d 865, 869 (2 Cir.), cert, denied, 400 U.S. 1020 , 91 S.Ct. 581 , 27 L.Ed.2d 631 (1970).
cited
Cited "see"
Menendez v. Saks
See 270 F.Supp. 1004 (S.D.N.Y.), 431 F.2d 394 (2d Cir. 1970), 400 U.S.1019, 91 S.Ct. 581 , 27 L.Ed.2d 630 (1971), 442 F.2d 530 (2d Cir. 1971).
cited
Cited "see"
Menendez v. Saks And Company
See 270 F. Supp. 1004 (S.D.N.Y.), 431 F.2d 394 (2d Cir. 1970), 400 U.S.1019, 91 S.Ct. 581 , 27 L.Ed.2d 630 (1971), 442 F.2d 530 (2d Cir. 1971).
cited
Cited "see"
Maltina Corporation and Julio Blanco-Herrera v. Cawy Bottling Company, Inc.
See Banco Nacional de Cuba v. First National City Bank, S.D.N.Y.1967, 270 F.Supp. 1004 , rev’d, 2 Cir. 1970, 431 F. 2d 394 , remanded for further consideration, 400 U.S. 1019 , 91 S.Ct. 581 , 27 L.
cited
Cited "see"
Occidental Petroleum Corp. v. Buttes Gas & Oil Co.
See Banco Nacional de Cuba v. First National City Bank, 270 F.Supp. 1004 (S.D.N.Y.1967), rev’d, 431 F.2d 394 (2nd Cir. 1970), vacated, 400 U.S. 1019 , 91 S.Ct. 581 , 27 L.Ed.2d 630 (1971). 35 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Wilbert J. Sheets, Cross-Appellee v. Yamaha Motors Corp., U.S.A., Cross-Appellants
See also E.I. duPont deNemours & Company v. Christopher, 431 F.2d 1012 (5th Cir.1970), ce rt. denied, 400 U.S. 1024 , 91 S.Ct. 581 , 27 L.Ed.2d 637 (1971) (explaining relative secrecy under Texas law); Tri-Tron International v. Velto, 525 F.2d 432 (9th Cir.1975) (explaining relative secrecy under California and Montana law); K-2 Ski Company v. Head Ski Co., Inc., 506 F.2d 471 (9th Cir.1974) (Maryland and Washington law).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Manhattan Tankers, Inc. v. Dole
See Preamble Discussion of Regulations Implementing the Wrecked Vessels Statute, 47 Fed.Reg. 27492 (1982); see also 36 Op. Att’y Gen. 302, 310-11 (1930) (construing Jones Act and Wrecked Vessels Statute to reflect a consistent policy) and Marine Carriers Corp. v. Fowler, 429 F.2d 702, 708 (2d Cir.1970) (the Jones Act seeks "to protect American shipping industry already engaged in the coastwise trade"), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 1020 , 91 S.Ct. 581 , 27 L.Ed.2d 631 (1971). .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Manhattan Tankers, Inc. v. Elizabeth H. Dole, Secretary of Transportation Manhattan Tankers, Inc. v. Elizabeth H. Dole, Secretary of Transportation Ogden Challenger Transport, Inc.
See Preamble Discussion of Regulations Implementing the Wrecked Vessels Statute, 47 Fed.Reg. 27492 (1982); see also 36 Op. Att'y Gen. 302 , 310-11 (1930) (construing Jones Act and Wrecked Vessels Statute to reflect a consistent policy) and Marine Carriers Corp. v. Fowler, 429 F.2d 702, 708 (2d Cir.1970) (the Jones Act seeks "to protect American shipping industry already engaged in the coastwise trade"), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 1020 , 91 S.Ct. 581 , 27 L.Ed.2d 631 (1971) 4 Manhattan Tankers also argues that participation by other shipowners was "required to protect against the potential for abus…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Electro-Craft Corp. v. Controlled Motion, Inc.
Compare E.l duPont deNemours & Co., Inc. v. Christopher, 431 F.2d 1012 (5th Cir.1970), cert, denied 400 U.S. 1024 , 91 S.Ct. 581 , 27 L.Ed.2d 637 (1971) (not reasonably necessary to guard against aerial reconnaissance flight, which showed plaintiffs plant design during construction of plant), with Capsonic Group, Inc. v. Plas-Met Corp., 46 Ill.App.3d 436 , 5 Ill.Dec. 41 , 361 N.E.2d 41 (1977) (secrecy not reasonably maintained where plant had no guard, no passes were required, drawings were not kept locked, and people on tours were not told that any information was confidential). 15 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Banco Nacional De Cuba, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee v. Chase Manhattan Bank, Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant
See, e. g., Banco Nacional de *878 Cuba v. First National City Bank, 270 F.Supp. 1004 (S.D.N.Y.1967), rev’d, 431 F.2d 394 (2d Cir. 1970), vacated and remanded, 400 U.S. 1019 , 91 S.Ct. 581 , 27 L.Ed.2d 630 (1971), on remand, 442 F.2d 530 (2d Cir. 1971), rev’d 406 U.S. 759 , 92 S.Ct. 1808 , 32 L.Ed.2d 466 (1972), on remand, 478 F.2d 191 (2d Cir. 1973); Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 193 F.Supp. 375 (S.D.N.Y.1961), aff’d 307 F.2d 845 (2d Cir. 1962), rev’d 376 U.S. 398 , 84 S.Ct. 923 , 11 L.Ed.2d 804 (1964), on remand sub nom.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Chemical Bank New York Trust Co.
See, e. g., Banco Nacional de Cuba v. First National City Bank, 270 F.Supp. 1004 (S.D.N.Y. 1967), rev’d 431 F.2d 394 (2d Cir. 1970), vacated and remanded, 400 U.S. 1019 , 91 S.Ct. 581 , 27 L.Ed.2d 630 (1971), on remand, 442 F.2d 530 (2d Cir. 1971), rev’d, 406 U.S. 759 , 92 S.Ct. 1808 , 32 L.Ed.2d 466 (1972), on remand, 478 F.2d 191 (2d Cir. 1973); Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 193 F.Supp. 375 (S.D.N.Y. 1961), aff’d, 307 F.2d 845 (2d Cir. 1962), rev’d 376 U.S. 398 , 84 S.Ct. 923 , 11 L.Ed.2d 804 (1964), on remand, sub nom.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Banco Para El Comercio Exterior De Cuba v. First National City Bank
See, e. g., Banco Nacional de Cuba v. First National City Bank, 270 F.Supp. 1004 (S.D.N.Y. 1967), rev’d, 431 F.2d 394 (2d Cir. 1970), vacated and remanded, 400 U.S. 1019 , 91 S.Ct. 581 , 27 L.Ed.2d 630 (1971), on remand, 442 F.2d 530 (2d Cir. 1971), rev'd, 406 U.S. 759 , 92 S.Ct. 1808 , 32 L.Ed.2d 466 (1972), on remand, 478 F.2d 191 (2d Cir. 1973); Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 193 F.Supp. 375 (S.D.N.Y. 1961), aff'd, 307 F.2d 845 (2d Cir. 1962), rev’d, 376 U.S. 398 , 84 S.Ct. 923 , 11 L.Ed.2d 804 , on remand, sub nom.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
The First National Bank of Boston (International) v. Banco Nacional De Cuba
See, e. g., Banco Nacional de Cuba v. First National City Bank, 270 F.Supp. 1004 (S.D.N.Y. 1967), rev’d, 431 F.2d 394 (2d Cir. 1970), vacated and remanded, 400 U.S. 1019 , 91 S.Ct. 581 , 27 L.Ed.2d 630 (1971), on remand, 442 F.2d 530 (2d Cir. 1971), rev’d, 406 U.S. 759 , 92 S.Ct. 1808 , 32 L.Ed.2d 466 (1972), on remand, 478 F.2d 191 (2d Cir. 1973) (“Banco I”); Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 193 F.Supp. 375 (S.D.N.Y. 1961), aff'd, 307 F.2d 845 (2d Cir. 1962), rev’d, 376 U.S. 398 , 84 S.Ct. 923 , 11 L.Ed.2d 804 (1964), on remand, sub nom.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Louis Vines
United States v. Mendoza, 5 Cir. 1973, 473 F.2d 697, 700 ; see also, United States v. Tourine, 2 Cir. 1970, 428 F.2d 865, 868-9 , cert. denied, 400 U.S. 1020 , 91 S.Ct. 581 , 27 L.Ed.2d 631 , rehearing denied, 401 U.S. 966 , 91 S.Ct. 968 , 28 L.Ed.2d 249 ; United States v. Salas, 2 Cir. 1967, 387 F.2d 121, 122 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
First National City Bank
v.
Banco Nacional de Cuba
v.
Banco Nacional de Cuba
No. 846.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 25, 1971.
Published
-C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for reconsideration in light of the views of the Department of State expressed in its letter dated November 17, .1970, and transmitted to this Court by the Solicitor General. In taking this action, the Court is expressing no views on the merits of the case.