Samuel Kot, L.L.C. v. Aron Fistein, et al.
Argentina Supreme Court
241 F.C.S. 291 (1958)

- Written by Whitney Waldenberg, JD
Facts
Samuel Kot, L.L.C. (plaintiff) owned a textile plant in Buenos Aires and was engaged in conflict with its employees, including Aron Fistein (collectively, the workers) (defendants). The workers took over the plant in protest, and they barred managers and foremen of Samuel Kot from entering the premises. All operations of the plant were stopped. A manager of Samuel Kot filed charges of usurpation of property with the police and demanded the return of the plant. The criminal court dismissed the accusation on the grounds that it was a labor dispute and not an illegal occupation. Samuel Kot then filed a petition asking the court to end the occupation of the factory, citing the recently decided Siri v. Police Commissioner, in which the Argentina Supreme Court recognized a writ of protection to safeguard constitutional rights. Samuel Kot argued that the occupation violated the right to work, the right to property, and the right to free activity established by the Argentine constitution. The lower court rejected the petition on the grounds that a writ of habeas corpus only protects personal and physical liberty and, therefore, the court could not entertain Samuel Kot’s plea.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
Dissent (Araoz de la Madrid and Oyhanarte, J.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.