Ramon Azurin v. William Von Raab, Commissioner of Customs of the United States Customs Service

792 F.2d 914, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 26367, 8 I.T.R.D. (BNA) 1066
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedJune 23, 1986
Docket86-2154
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 792 F.2d 914 (Ramon Azurin v. William Von Raab, Commissioner of Customs of the United States Customs Service) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ramon Azurin v. William Von Raab, Commissioner of Customs of the United States Customs Service, 792 F.2d 914, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 26367, 8 I.T.R.D. (BNA) 1066 (9th Cir. 1986).

Opinion

*915 ORDER

This appeal relates to Ferdinand Marcos’ effort to obtain the return of property, including jewelry, currency, and negotiable instruments that he brought with him when he arrived in Hawaii from the Phillipines. That property is now in the possession of the United States Customs Service. The district court issued a writ of mandamus directing the Commissioner of Customs to release the property in question to Marcos’ agents. It explained its reasons in a thorough, detailed, and careful opinion in which it analyzed and discussed a number of serious, important legal questions. Subsequently, the district court denied a stay of its order. Again it prepared a thorough, detailed, and careful written explanation of its reasons. 632 F.Supp. 30. The Commissioner of Customs appealed from the writ of mandamus and filed an emergency motion seeking a stay of that order.

As we have mentioned, the petition filed by the Commissioner raises a number of serious and complex legal questions. The issues presented on appeal are substantial and of public importance. There is a clear public interest in their proper resolution. In addition, the balance of hardships in this case strongly favors the granting of a stay pending appeal: if a stay is granted, the status quo will be maintained and there will be no danger of dissipation of the assets.

The emergency motion of the Commissioner of Customs for a stay pending appeal is GRANTED. (See Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Commission v. National Football League, 634 F.2d 1197 (9th Cir. 1980); Lopez v. Heckler, 713 F.2d 1432 (9th Cir.), rev’d on other grounds, 463 U.S. 1328, 104 S.Ct. 10, 77 L.Ed.2d 1431 (1983)).

The appeal is ordered expedited.

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

Related

Bernstein v. United States Department of State
974 F. Supp. 1288 (N.D. California, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
792 F.2d 914, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 26367, 8 I.T.R.D. (BNA) 1066, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ramon-azurin-v-william-von-raab-commissioner-of-customs-of-the-united-ca9-1986.