Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc. v. Republic of Cuba

425 U.S. 682 (1976)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 31,100+ case briefs...

Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc. v. Republic of Cuba

United States Supreme Court

425 U.S. 682 (1976)

Facts

In 1960 the Republic of Cuba (Cuba) confiscated five major Cuban cigar businesses and assigned so-called interventors to operate them. The cigar businesses sold cigars to American importers, and after confiscation, the interventors continued to send cigars to the American importers. Former owners (plaintiffs) of the cigar businesses who had moved to the United States filed suit in federal court against the importers (defendants). Cuba and the interventors were permitted to intervene. The former owners and interventors both asserted rights to payments that were mistakenly made by the importers to the interventors for cigars shipped before the confiscation. The importers had demanded that the interventors return the funds, but the interventors refused. The interventors were authorized by Cuba to operate the commercial enterprises of the cigar businesses, but no evidence suggested that Cuba had expressly authorized the interventors to refuse repayment of money owed. The district court held that the former owners were entitled to the money from purchases of cigars made up to the time of the confiscation. On appeal, the court of appeals applied the act-of-state doctrine. The court of appeals found that the interventors failed to return the money mistakenly paid by the importers as demanded by the importers, but that the interventors’ refusal constituted an act of state that could not be reviewed by a United States court.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (White, J.)

Concurrence (Stevens, J.)

Concurrence (Powell, J.)

Dissent (Marshall, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 557,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 557,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 31,100 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 557,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 31,100 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership