Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T05:48:59.397Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

United States: District Court for the Eastern District of New York Decision in Federal Republic of Germany v. Elicofon*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 April 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
Legislation and Regulations
Information
International Legal Materials , Volume 14 , Issue 3 , May 1975 , pp. 806 - 810
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1975

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

*

[Reproduced from the text provided by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

[As of May 14, 1975, the case was still pending before the Court. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decision appears at 12 I.L.M. 1163 (1973). The decision of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, dated September 25, 1972, appears at 11 I.L.M. 1259 (1972). The German Democratic Republic-United States Agreement on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations, done September 4, 1974, appears at 13 I.L.M. 1436 (1974).]

References

/1 Kunstsammlungen alternatively moves under Fed.R.CivJP 24(a)(2) for intervention. Since the application is granted under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6), it is not necessary to consider the alternative relief demanded.

/2 In Western Steel Erection Co. v. United States. 424 F.2d 737 (10th Cir. 1970); Screven v. United States. 207 F.2d 740 (5th Cir. 1953); Mobay Chemical Co. v. Hudson Foam Plastics Corp., 277 F.Supp. 413 (S.D.N.Y. 1967);United States V. 140.80 Acres of Land. 32 F.R.D. 11 (E.P. La, 1963), the party seeking relief was not a party to the judgment or order, and relief was denied for that reason.

/3 In Smith, the court stated that it had not yet decided whether a rule regarding leave should be adopted in the Second Circuit. There is long-standing opposition in the Circuit to such a rule, see, e.g.. S.C. Johnson & Son v. Johnson. 175 F.2d 176 (2d Cir. 1949) (Clark, J., dissenting); Perlman v. 322 West Seventy-Second Street Corp., 127 F.2d 716 (2d Cir. 1942).