French v. Banco Nacional de Cuba

New York Court of Appeals

French v. Banco Nacional de Cuba

238 N.E.2d 505, 21 N.Y.2d 1038, 291 N.Y.S.2d 16, 1968 N.Y. LEXIS 1438

DecidedApril 18, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 238 N.E.2d 505 (French v. Banco Nacional de Cuba) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

French v. Banco Nacional de Cuba, 238 N.E.2d 505, 21 N.Y.2d 1038, 291 N.Y.S.2d 16, 1968 N.Y. LEXIS 1438 (N.Y. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Reargument ordered and case set down for argument during the September, 1968 session. The parties are requested to submit briefs in which they will additionally address themselves to the following questions: (1) Whether or not the suspension of redemption of the tax exemption certificates here involved constituted or now constitutes a confiscation or taking within the meaning of the Hickenlooper Amendment to the Federal Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (U. S. Code, tit. 22, § 2370, [1039]*1039subd. [e], par. [2]; 78 U. S. Stat. 1009, 1013 [1964], as amd. by 79 U. S. Stat. 653, 659 [1965]) so as to bar the defense of “act of state” and (2) assuming that the first question be answered in the affirmative, whether or not, applying principles of international law, the suspension above referred to constituted a reasonable currency control regulation aimed at the protection of foreign exchange reserves or was otherwise valid under the Hickenlooper Amendment and whether or not the continued suspension of redemption constitutes a reasonable currency control regulation aimed at the protection of foreign exchange reserves which conforms with principles of international law.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Reargument ordered and case set down for argument during the September, 1968 session. The parties are requested to submit briefs in which they will additionally address themselves to the following questions: (1) Whether or not the suspension of redemption of the tax exemption certificates here involved constituted or now constitutes a confiscation or taking within the meaning of the Hickenlooper Amendment to the Federal Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (U. S. Code, tit. 22, § 2370, [1039]*1039subd. [e], par. [2]; 78 U. S. Stat. 1009, 1013 [1964], as amd. by 79 U. S. Stat. 653, 659 [1965]) so as to bar the defense of “act of state” and (2) assuming that the first question be answered in the affirmative, whether or not, applying principles of international law, the suspension above referred to constituted a reasonable currency control regulation aimed at the protection of foreign exchange reserves or was otherwise valid under the Hickenlooper Amendment and whether or not the continued suspension of redemption constitutes a reasonable currency control regulation aimed at the protection of foreign exchange reserves which conforms with principles of international law.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 N.E.2d 505, 21 N.Y.2d 1038, 291 N.Y.S.2d 16, 1968 N.Y. LEXIS 1438, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/french-v-banco-nacional-de-cuba-ny-1968.