26 Cited authorities

Saudi Arabia v. Nelson
507 U.S. 349 (1993) Cited 645 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Saudi government's wrongful arrest, imprisonment, and torture of plaintiff were sovereign not commercial activities
Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino
376 U.S. 398 (1964) Cited 763 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the federal common law act of state doctrine precluded a federal court from considering a state law challenge to the Cuban government's expropriation of certain property
Kirkpatrick Co. v. Environmental Tectonics Corp.
493 U.S. 400 (1990) Cited 259 times
Holding that federal courts ordinarily have the obligation to exercise their jurisdiction and "[t]he act of state doctrine does not establish an exception for cases and controversies that may embarrass foreign governments"
Guggenheim Found. v. Lubell
77 N.Y.2d 311 (N.Y. 1991) Cited 181 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that "although [defendant-]appellant’s Statute of Limitations argument fails, [its] contention that the [plaintiff] did not exercise reasonable diligence in locating the painting" is relevant "in the context of laches defense"
Sporn v. MCA Records, Inc.
58 N.Y.2d 482 (N.Y. 1983) Cited 204 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a conversion claim was actionable for possession of a master recording
Republic of Philippines v. Marcos
806 F.2d 344 (2d Cir. 1986) Cited 160 times
Holding that defendant-appellant New York corporations who held property on behalf of defendants Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos could not assert foreign sovereign immunity
Oetjen v. Central Leather Co.
246 U.S. 297 (1918) Cited 340 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding act of state doctrine barred American courts from considering the sale of animal hides by the Mexican government
Bingham v. New York City Transit Auth.
99 N.Y.2d 355 (N.Y. 2003) Cited 75 times
13 Argued January 14, 2003. Decided February 20, 2003. APPEAL, by permission of the Court of Appeals, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, entered October 30, 2001, which affirmed an order of the Supreme Court (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered in New York County, granting a motion by defendants for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Constantine P. Kokkoris, for appellant. Lawrence Heisler, for respondents. Judges Smith, Ciparick, Wesley
Mtr. of Peters v. Sotheby's
34 A.D.3d 29 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006) Cited 67 times
Finding that if court accepted petitioner's claim that artwork was converted, action would be time-barred because statute of limitations would have began on the date of conversion
Metropolitan Museum Historic District Coalition v. De Montebello
20 A.D.3d 28 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005) Cited 53 times
Holding that the Metropolitan Museum of Art is not a governmental "agency" and so is not subject to FOIL's provisions

In the Matter of Riven Flamenbaum, Deceased. Vorderasiatisches Museum, Respondent, Hannah K. Flamenbaum, Appellant, Israel Flamenbaum, Respondent.

26 Cited authorities

Holding that the Saudi government's wrongful arrest, imprisonment, and torture of plaintiff were sovereign not commercial activities

Holding that the federal common law act of state doctrine precluded a federal court from considering a state law challenge to the Cuban government's expropriation of certain property

Holding that federal courts ordinarily have the obligation to exercise their jurisdiction and "[t]he act of state doctrine does not establish an exception for cases and controversies that may embarrass foreign governments"

Holding that "although [defendant-]appellant’s Statute of Limitations argument fails, [its] contention that the [plaintiff] did not exercise reasonable diligence in locating the painting" is relevant "in the context of laches defense"

Holding that a conversion claim was actionable for possession of a master recording

Holding that defendant-appellant New York corporations who held property on behalf of defendants Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos could not assert foreign sovereign immunity

Holding act of state doctrine barred American courts from considering the sale of animal hides by the Mexican government

Finding that if court accepted petitioner's claim that artwork was converted, action would be time-barred because statute of limitations would have began on the date of conversion

Holding that the Metropolitan Museum of Art is not a governmental "agency" and so is not subject to FOIL's provisions