Rosner v. United States
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
231 F. Supp. 2d 1202 (2002)
- Written by Patrick Busch, JD
Facts
In 1944, Germany invaded Hungary, and the Hungarian government ordered Jews to turn in their gold, jewelry, and other valuable personal property. The property was later loaded onto a Germany-bound train, which was known as the Gold Train. The Gold Train was seized in Austria by the United States Army in 1945. Many years later, a group of Hungarian Jewish Holocaust survivors (plaintiffs) brought this class action lawsuit against the United States on behalf of Hungarian Jews and their descendants. The plaintiffs claim that the property on the Gold Train was identifiable because it was kept in labeled boxes. The plaintiffs claim that the United States nonetheless determined in 1946 that it was impossible to determine the rightful owners of the property, and that the Gold Train’s contents were sold or requisitioned by the Army. The plaintiffs also claim that much of the property was looted from military storage. The plaintiffs only learned of these facts in 1999, when the United States government released a report on the matter. The plaintiffs claimed that these actions were an unconstitutional taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment, a breach of an implied contract of bailment, and violations of international law. The government moved to dismiss on grounds of untimeliness, failure to state a claim, and sovereign immunity.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Seitz, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.
