Malewicz v. City of Amsterdam

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that the act of state doctrine does not apply in such a case because “there was nothing sovereign about the City’s acquisition of the . . . paintings, other than that it was performed by a sovereign entity.”
• denying forum non conveniens dismissal because “Plaintiffs’ claims would be barred in the Dutch courts based on liberative and acquisitive prescription” doctrines
• denying forum non conveniens dismissal because “Plaintiffs’ claims would be barred in the Dutch courts based on liberative and acquisitive prescription” doctrines
• “[W]hen the defendant did not acquire the property lawfully in the first instance, the claim accrues immediately . . . .”
• defendant city “contracted with [U.S.] [m]useums,” “received nearly € 25,000 as consideration for the contract,” and “agreed to send several employees ... to the United States”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).