David De Csepel v. Republic of Hungary

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that complaint did not specify any agreement that artwork was to be returned to the United States
• noting that “the district court concluded” that Hungary had de facto stripped plaintiffs’ predecessors of their citizenship rights
• noting that “plaintiffs are ‘masters of the complaint’ with the power to bring those claims they see fit” (quoting Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 395 (1987))
• noting that “plaintiffs are ‘masters of the complaint’ with the power to bring those claims they see fit” (quoting Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 395 (1987))
• acknowledging that a Hungarian-based contract \obviously occurred outside the territory of the United States\
• affirming denial of motion to dismiss bailment, conversion, constructive trust, accounting, declaratory relief, and unjust enrichment claims over failure to return seized property to United States, under the commercial activity exception

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).