Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-r6qrq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T23:09:29.404Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

United States: Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Opinion on Remand from the Supreme Court in Ramirez V. Weinberger

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 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 25 , Issue 3 , May 1986 , pp. 661 - 663
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1986

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

* [Reproduced from the Slip Opinion provided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. [A note on the pertinent part of the Foreign Assistance and Related Programs Appropriations Act appears at 24 I.L.M. 1508 (1985). The Court of Appeals judgment vacated by the Supreme Court appears at 23 I.L.M. 1274 (1984).]

1 The en banecourt's decision was rendered on October 5,1984.

2 The continued presence of U.S.constructed facilities may be relevant to mootness considerations but provides no grounds for injunctive relief. Plaintiffs never sought, nor could we issue, an injunction against the Honduran Government or its agents to remove Honduran military structures from Honduran land. SeeAppellants’ Reply Brief on Rehearing En Baneat 11.

3 Although plaintiffs now state their intention to add a claim for damages, we believe the orderly administration of justice requires, under all the circumstances of this case, that any such claim be brought to the appropriate court of first instance in a new complaint.

4 Attenuation of a controversy also provides grounds for denying declaratory relief. See Hess, supra,745 F.2d at 701; cf. Ramirez, supra,745 F.2d at 1532 (declaratory relief may be justified given strong showing of equities favoring equitable relief).