State of Tennessee v. Charles Owens

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that Hungarian museums were “agencies or instrumentalities” because defendants had admitted that fact in their answer and, in any event, the museums performed “largely commercial” functions
• noting that the confiscation of artwork during the Holocaust in furtherance of the Nazis’ campaign of genocide satisfies the elements of the expropriation exception as recognized by the D.C. Circuit in Simon
• finding that the plaintiffs’ claims did not directly mirror the expropriation jurisdictional standard because plaintiffs relied on a violation of international law exclusively for jurisdictional purposes and not to establish liability on the merits
• ordering the Court to review if pieces were taken from Elizabeth after she became a citizen “as part of its review of the artwork returned and retaken by Hungary”
• “[D]efendants have already admitted that the museums and university holding all of the art are agencies or instrumentalities.”
• dismissing the Cranach and Opie paintings

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).