Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T01:22:10.695Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Aris Gloves, Inc. v. United States. 420 F. 2d 1386

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2017

Alona E. Evans
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Judicial Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 64 , Issue 5 , October 1970 , pp. 948 - 950
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1970

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 13 Dept. of State Bulletin 153 (1945); 39 AJ.I.L. Supp. 245 (1945).

2 22 U.S.C. §§ 1621-1643k (1964). Footnote by court. Other footnotes by court renumbered or omitted.

3 50 U.S.C. App. §§ 2001-2017p (1964). Footnote by court.

4 Aris Gloves, Inc. v. Re, Civil No. 929-67 (D.D.C., May 1, 1967); Aris Gloves Inc. v. Walsh, No. 20,984 (D.C. Cir., May 16, 1967); Aris Gloves, Inc. v. Re, Civil No. 929-67 (D.D.C., Sept. 8, 1967). Cited by court.

5 Plaintiff’s petition, in this case, seeks compensation for the value of its property taken in both Germany and Czechoslovakia. However, in its cross-motion for summary judgment, plaintiff completely fails to make reference to its Czechoslovakian claim. At oral argument, plaintiff’s counsel stated that Aris Gloves, at the moment, was seeking recovery only for its loss of property in East Germany. He conceded that the Czechoslovakian claim involved other and different issues from the German claim, and, consequently, the Czechoslovakian question would be handled separately in another action.

In the best interests of justice, we will consider plaintiff to have withdrawn its claim in this suit for compensation for loss of property in Czechoslovakia, rather than hold that such claim is waived and thereby lost. This decision will be without prejudice to the right of plaintiff to file another action in this court for the recovery of the value of its property located in Czechoslovakia. Footnote by court.

6 420 F.2d 1386 at 1387.

7 Ibid. 1391, quoting Juragua Iron Co. c. United States, 42 Ct. Cl. 99, 111-112; 2 A.J.I.L. 418 (1908).

8 Proclamation No. 2714, 61 Stat. 1048 (1947). Footnote by court.

9 420 F.2d 1386 at 1393.

10 61 Stat. 3157; T.I.A.S., No. 1655. Cited by court.

11 21 Ct. Cl. 340 (1886).