Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T18:38:19.234Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Memorandum for the United States Suggesting the Supreme Court not Review Pan-American Life v. Lorido (Nationalization of insurance company's Cuban assets; effect of Cuban currency laws on insurance contract)*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 May 2017

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 and Similar Proceedings
Information
International Legal Materials , Volume 3 , Issue 4 , July 1964 , pp. 721 - 725
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1964

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.)

Footnotes

*

[This brief was filed in the Supreme Court on May 28, 1964. The briefs of the Pan-American Life Insurance Company and Marie Lorido have not been reproduced.

[The Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari on June 22, 1964.

[The decision of the Circuit Court of Dade County, Florida, is reported at 19 Fla. Supp. 167 (1962); and the decision of the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District, at 154 So. 2d 200 (1963).]

References

1 Because the insured had made and received payments in pesos instead of dollars as a result of a 1951 Cuban monetary decree, the court held that the parties had, by their conduct, agreed to payment in pesos instead of dollars (Pet. App. 16, 17). The court did not find that a similar novation occurred with respect to the place of payment. This remained New Orleans, pursuant to the written contract.

2 The only possible exception to this limitation is where there is a significant policy of our national government requiring that extra-territorial effect be accorded a foreign governmental act in a particular case. See United States v. Belmont, 301 U.S. 324; United States v. Pink, 315 U.S. 203. No similar federal policy exists in the present case.