nach oben

Erschienen in:

2017 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

13. Detroit Institute of Arts and Toledo Museum of Art v. Ullin

verfasst von : Bruce L. Hay

Erschienen in: Nazi-Looted Art and the Law

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

In Detroit Institute of Arts v. Ullin and Toledo Museum of Art v. Ullin, heirs of Martha Nathan claimed that in 1938, shortly after fleeing Germany for France, she had sold paintings by Gauguin and van Gogh under duress to a group of dealers in Paris, which were later acquired by the Detroit and Toledo museums. This chapter examines the adjudication of these cases, which the courts decided in favor of the museums on the grounds that relevant statutes of limitations had expired.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Vorheriges Kapitel De Csepel v. Republic of Hungary

Nächstes Kapitel Vineberg v. Bissonnette

For this and other background information, see Martinez (2015) and Micucci (2006).

Detroit Institute of Arts and Toledo Museum of Art (2006), p. 2.

Id. at 3.

Id. at 2.

Toledo Museum of Art v. Ullin, 477 F. Supp.2d 802 (N.D. Ohio 2006).

Detroit Institute of Arts v. Ullin, 2007 WL 1016996 (E.D. Mich. 2007).

Two of the dealers, Alexander Ball and Justin Thannhauser, were Germans whose galleries had been seized by the Nazis. The third, George Wildenstein, was French.

Toledo Museum v. Ullin, 477 F. Supp.2d at 805, 807.

Id. at 805. For comparable language in the Detroit museum case, see Detroit Institute v. Ullin, 2007 WL 1016996, *1–2.

For criticism of the decisions, see Kreder (2012).

Guaranty Trust Co. v. York, 326 U.S. 99 (1945).

Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co., 313 U.S. 487 (1941).

Toledo Museum v, Ullin, 477 F. Supp.2d at 806.

Detroit Institute v. Ullin, 2007 WL 1016996, *2.

Ohio Revised Code § 2305.09(B), quoted in Toledo Museum v, Ullin, 477 F. Supp.2d at 806.

Toledo Museum v, Ullin, 477 F. Supp.2d at 807, citing Investors REIT One v. Jacobs, 546 N.E.2d 206 (Ohio 1989), Hambleton v. R.G. Barry Corp., 465 N.E.2d 1298 (Ohio 1984), and Copeland v. Delvaux, 623 N.E.2d 569 (Ohio App. 1993).

Toledo Museum v, Ullin, 477 F. Supp.2d at 807.

Id.

Id. at 807–8.

The court rejected the heirs’ argument that the Toledo museum had “waived” the statute of limitations by including (in compliance with American Association of Museums guidelines) the Gauguin on a website listing works that had left Europe during the Nazi era and urging people with possible claims to such works to come forward. Id. at 808–9.

Michigan Compiled Laws § 600.5827, quoted in Detroit Institute v. Ullin, 2007 WL 1016996, *3.

Detroit Institute v. Ullin, 2007 WL 1016996, *3.

Id.

Id. (quoting Brennan v. Edward D. Jones & Co., 626 N.W.2d 917, 920 (Mich. App. 2001)).

See Chap. 15 below.

Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act, Pub. L. 114–308 (Dec. 16, 2016), § 2(6).

Detroit Institute of Arts and Toledo Museum of Art. 2006. Detroit and Toledo Museums Present Research Findings on Nazi-Era Provenance for Two Paintings in Their Collection. Accessed June 1, 2017. http://www.toledomuseum.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/Provenance_Research.pdf.

Kreder, Jennifer Anglim. 2012. Fighting Corruption of the Historical Record: Nazi-Looted Art Litigation. Kansas Law Review 61: 75–137.

Martinez, Alanna. 2015. Museums Respond to Biting Report on Nazi-Looted Art. Observer, July 2.

Micucci, Dana. 2006. Of Museums, Heirs and Lawsuits. New York Times, April 21.

Brennan v. Edward D. Jones & Co., 626 N.W.2d 917 (Mich. App. 2001)

Copeland v. Delvaux, 623 N.E.2d 569 (Ohio App. 1993)

Detroit Institute of Arts v. Ullin, 2007 WL 1016996 (E.D. Mich. 2007)

Guaranty Trust Co. v. York, 326 U.S. 99 (1945)

Hambleton v. R.G. Barry Corp., 465 N.E.2d 1298 (Ohio 1984)

Investors REIT One v. Jacobs, 546 N.E.2d 206 (Ohio 1989)

Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co., 313 U.S. 487 (1941)

Toledo Museum of Art v. Ullin, 477 F. Supp.2d 802 (N.D. Ohio 2006)

Titel: Detroit Institute of Arts and Toledo Museum of Art v. Ullin
verfasst von: Bruce L. Hay
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Buch: Nazi-Looted Art and the Law
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-64966-5

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-319-64967-2

Copyright-Jahr: 2017
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64967-2_13