1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.4th
  4. 69 F.4th
  5. 69 F.4th 554 (2023)
 

CASSIRER v. THYSSEN-BORNEMISZA COLLECTION FOUND.

No. 19-55616.

69 F.4th 554 (2023)

David CASSIRER; The Estate of Ava Cassirer; United Jewish Federation of San Diego County, a California non-profit corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. THYSSEN-BORNEMISZA COLLECTION FOUNDATION, Defendant-Appellee.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Filed May 22, 2023.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

David Boies (argued), Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, Armonk, New York; Stephen N. Zack , Andrew S. Brenner , Rossana Baeza , Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, Miami, Florida; Scott E. Gant , Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, Washington, D.C.; David A. Barrett , Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, New York, New York; Laura W. Brill and Nicholas Daum , Kendall Brill & Kelly LLP, Los Angeles, California; Samuel J. Dubbin , Dubbin & Kravetz LLP, Coral Gables, Florida; Devin Freedman , Freedmand Normand Friedland LLP, Miami, Florida; for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Thaddeus J. Stauber (argued), Sarah Erickson André , Aaron M. Brian , and Irene Scholl-Tatevosyan , Nixon Peabody LLP, Los Angeles, California, for Defendant-Appellee.

Bernard M. Cremades Román and Patrick T. Byrne , B. Cremades & Asociados, Madrid, Spain, for Amici Curiae Comunidad Judía de Madrid and Federacíon de Comunidades Judías de España.

Amelia L.B. Sargent and Kirby Hsu , Willenken LLP, Los Angeles, California, for Amicus Curiae the Kingdom of Spain.

Catherine Z. Ysrael and Ben Conway , Deputy Attorneys General; Srividya Panchalam , Supervising Deputy Attorney General; Michael L. Newman , Senior Assistant Attorney General; Rob Bonta , Attorney General of California; Office of the California Attorney General; Los Angeles, California; for Amicus Curiae the States of California.

Order, Dissent by Judge Bea.

ORDER CERTIFYING QUESTION TO THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT

We ask the California Supreme Court to resolve a question of state law: how the comparative impairment analysis, the third step in California's choice-of-law test, applies in a situation where, under the laws of California, a person may not acquire title to a stolen item of personal property (because a thief cannot pass good title, and California has not adopted the doctrine of adverse possession for personal...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases