Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Kunstsammlungen zu Weimar v. Elicofon

536 F. Supp 829 (1981)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 28,700+ case briefs...

Kunstsammlungen zu Weimar v. Elicofon

United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York

536 F. Supp 829 (1981)

Play video

Facts

The Kunstsammlungen museum (plaintiff), located in Germany, owned two portraits painted by the German artist Albrecht Duerer. Following the commencement of World War II, the museum’s director, Dr. Walter Scheidig, transferred the paintings to a nearby castle for safekeeping. American troops were stationed at the castle at the time of Germany’s surrender in the spring of 1945. The troops left the castle in the summer of 1945, and the Duerer portraits disappeared at the same time. Elicofon (defendant) bought the portraits in New York from an American ex-serviceman. Following Elicofon’s public disclosure that he possessed the paintings, the museum brought an action for the paintings’ return. Dr. Schedig provided uncontradicted testimony regarding the paintings’ disappearance. The museum moved for summary judgment on the basis that there was no genuine issue of material fact about whether Elicofon had acquired good title. In support of its motion, the museum asserted that Dr. Scheidig’s uncontradicted testimony created an irrefutable inference that the paintings were stolen from the castle in 1945 and that Elicofon lacked good title, because he had acquired the paintings from the thief or from the thief’s transferee. Elicofon moved for summary judgment, claiming that there was a question regarding the facts relied on by the museum to establish theft. In the alternative, Elicofon claimed that the theft did not preclude a finding that the ex-serviceman who sold him the paintings had acquired good title in Germany.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Mishler, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 546,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 546,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 28,700 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 546,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 28,700 briefs - keyed to 983 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership