Thomason v. Wade

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a seventy-year delay “has prejudiced the good-faith purchaser since none of the parties to the original sale of the painting . . . are alive”
• concluding that a failure to make a demand for the painting at issue was unreasonable where “the painting was exhibited as part of the [owner’s] collection at prominent museums, galleries, and universities”
• “[T]he doctrine of unclean hands does not preclude consideration of the laches defense because the Otten family’s alleged attempt to create a false provenance for the painting did not prejudice respondent.”
• “[T]he degree of diligence exercised by the true owner in attempting to locate the stolen property and identify its owner . . . is pertinent in the context of a laches defense.”
• plaintiff waited seventy years after learning of alleged conversion of artwork

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).