Schoeps v. Museum of Modern Art
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
603 F.Supp. 2d 673 (2009)
- Written by Serena Lipski, JD
Facts
The Museum of Modern Art and the Guggenheim (defendants) filed an action for declaratory judgment against Julius Schoeps and other heirs (plaintiffs) of Paul von Mendelssohn-Bartholdy and his wife. The heirs claimed that the two museums had art that von Mendelssohn-Bartholdy was forced to sell under duress from the Nazis in the 1930s. The museums alleged that the heirs were attempting to extort money from them with the threat of bad publicity. The museums claimed that, as cultural institutions serving the public, they held the paintings for the benefit of the public. The heirs claimed that they were righting a major historical injustice. The parties settled just before trial, and the settlement agreement contained a confidentiality clause prohibiting disclosure of the settlement amount. The court requested that the parties file the settlement agreement under seal so that it could determine the agreement’s appropriateness and whether it should be made public. The museums then changed their position, stating that they would be willing to make the settlement terms public, but the heirs did not change their position.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Rakoff, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.
