26 Cited authorities

  1. Saudi Arabia v. Nelson

    507 U.S. 349 (1993)   Cited 526 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the abuse of police power was sovereign in nature and so the Saudi Arabian government was immune
  2. Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino

    376 U.S. 398 (1964)   Cited 724 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
  3. Kirkpatrick Co. v. Environmental Tectonics Corp.

    493 U.S. 400 (1990)   Cited 230 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"
  4. Guggenheim Found. v. Lubell

    77 N.Y.2d 311 (N.Y. 1991)   Cited 160 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"
  5. Sporn v. MCA Records, Inc.

    58 N.Y.2d 482 (N.Y. 1983)   Cited 182 times
    Holding that a conversion claim was actionable for possession of a master recording
  6. Republic of Philippines v. Marcos

    806 F.2d 344 (2d Cir. 1986)   Cited 150 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
  7. Oetjen v. Central Leather Co.

    246 U.S. 297 (1918)   Cited 320 times
    Holding act of state doctrine barred American courts from considering the sale of animal hides by the Mexican government
  8. Bingham v. New York City Transit Auth.

    99 N.Y.2d 355 (N.Y. 2003)   Cited 60 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

  9. Mtr. of Peters v. Sotheby's

    34 A.D.3d 29 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)   Cited 52 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
  10. Metropolitan Museum Historic District Coalition v. De Montebello

    20 A.D.3d 28 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)   Cited 50 times
    Holding that the Metropolitan Museum of Art is not a governmental "agency" and so is not subject to FOIL's provisions