Havana Docks Corp. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. · ¶34

This case illustrates the point. The Court of Appeals agreed that, if the cruise lines had used the docks before Havana Docks' property interest was set to expire, they could have been liable under the Act. 119 F. 4th, at 1288, 1290. The dissent seems to agree. Post, at 259 (opinion of Kagan, J.). Yet no matter when Havana Docks' property interest was set to expire, the cruise lines would not have “used” (or otherwise traffcked in) Havana Docks' conces sion. The cruise lines would have “used”—and traffcked in—“the docks” themselves. Ibid. But, the use of the docks would not be enough for liability on the Court of Appeals' and the dissent's view. See post, at 260 (“where the only `property' confscated from the plaintiff is an intangible property interest, the defendant is liable only if he has traffcked in that interest”).

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.