Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 April 2017
1 99 F. Supp. 655 (S.D.N.Y., May 14, 1951), digested in this Journal, Vol. 46 (1952), p. 149. An earlier decision in the same case by Judge Medina had upheld the application of The Netherlands Decree A–1. See 79 F. Supp. 966 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 30, 1948).
2 Discussing Cities Service Co. v. McGrath, 342 U. 3. 330 (Jan. 28, 1952), decided after the District Court judgment in the principal case.
3 Citing note, 100 Univ. Pa. L. Rev. 764 (1952).
4 Here the court cited Agrocide v. Arsocid, Holland, Court of Appeal, The Hague (1946), Annual Digest 1947, No. 142; Public Prosecutor v. Reidar Haaland, Norway, Supreme Court, Appellate Division (1945), Annual Digest 1943–45, No. 154; Re Hoogeveen et al., Belgium, Court of Cassation (1944), Annual Digest 1943–45, No. 148; Stasiuk and Jagnycz v. Klewec, Poland, Supreme Court, Third Division (1927), Annual Digest 1927–28, No. 380; De Nimal v. De Nimal, Belgium, Court of Appeal of Brussels (1919), Annual Digest 1919–22, No. 311.
5 Here the court quoted briefly from McNair, “Municipal Effects of Belligerent Occupation,” 57 L. Q. Rev. 33, 73 (1941); Feilchenfeld, International Economic Law of Belligerent Occupation (1942), p. 135; and Stein, “Application of the Law of the Absent Sovereign in Territory under Belligerent Occupation: The Schio Massacre,” 46 Mich. L. Rev. 341, 362 (1948).
6 Citing Stein, “United States: Recovery of Property Confiscated by Enemy Occupant,” 1 Am. J. Comp. L. (1952) 261, 266.