Domestic law implementing treaty that barred, upon request, the sale of ancient coins belonging to other nations properly divided the purposes of the treaty; it was therefore not necessary to prove at trial that the coin had been discovered in the country of the requesting state party, as the implementing law had allowed for administrative designation of classes of coins.
Court did not abuse its authority by requiring that the deft's expert testimony be about the particular coins at issue, rather than old coins generally.
Court did not abuse authority in excluding testimony that the coins had been passed legally from a third state into the US immediately prior to sale.
Where the administrative regulations implementing the domestic law, apparently due to a drafting error, changed the scope of enforcement, a fair notice defense doesn't bar enforcement where all parties seemed to be aware of which items were prohibited under the law.
Discovery properly limited. Court did not abuse its discretion in striking part of the amended answer that seemed outside of the remand from the court of appeals.
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/171625.P.pdf
Since 2011. An occasional commonplacing of the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
Neither an authoritative statement of the law nor legal advice. Quick work.