Price v. United States
Encyclopedia
Price v. United States (1995) was a lawsuit concerning the ownership of certain artwork seized by the United States
in Germany
in the aftermath of World War II
. It was decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
, which overturned an initial judgment of the District Court for the Southern District of Texas
. The decision was based on the definition of the tort
of conversion
and the applicability of the principle of sovereign immunity
.
Among the artwork which formed the subject matter of the lawsuit were many photographs by German photographer Heinrich Hoffmann
.
The property in dispute was a number of works of art which had been owned by Heinrich Hoffmann
(1885–1957), a German photographer best known for his many published photographs of Adolf Hitler
.
The Court of Appeals considered the property in three distinct categories:
Price had purchased this property from Hoffmann's heirs in Germany in the early 1980s, and then demanded the United States government to turn it over to him. When the U.S. government refused, he filed the lawsuit on August 9, 1983.
denied a motion by the U.S. government in February 1989 to have the case dismissed, and entered a partial summary judgment
in Price's favor, chastising the government for its defense strategy: "Instead of property law arguments, the government relie[d] upon political denigration of the artist and the archivist." The District Court awarded Price almost $8 million in damages
from the United States' conversion
of the paintings and archives, including Price's loss of use of the property from 1983. Both sides appealed the District Court judgment, with Price claiming $41 million in damages.
upheld the appeal of the U.S. government in November 1995, rejecting Price's appeal at the same time. It ruled that the United States was entitled to sovereign immunity
against tort
claims except where this had been expressly waived. By distinct reasoning, the Court found that there was no waiver for either the watercolors or the photographic archive.
, where they were registered and cataloged. The Hitler watercolors were classified as "military objects" and transferred from Munich
to Wiesbaden
, and then to the United States around June 1950. Other artwork belong to Hoffmann was returned to him.
The Court did not rule on the legally of the "confiscation". Instead, it found that the (allegedly) tortuous act – that is the act which went against the owner's interests – occurred when the watercolors were separated from the rest of Hoffmann's property and sent from Munich to Wiesbaden. As the act occurred in Germany, a claim in the U.S. federal courts was debarred under the Federal Tort Claims Act
, specifically 28 U.S.C. § 2680(k).
, and was shipped to the United States "around the time of the Berlin Airlift" (1948–1949). On June 25, 1951, the Attorney General, acting pursuant to the Trading with the Enemy Act, 50 U.S.C.App. § 1–33, vested in himself all rights in the photographs and photographic images "to be held, used, administered, liquidated, sold, or otherwise dealt with in the interest of and for the benefit of the United States." The archive was later transferred to the United States National Archives.
The Federal Tort Claims Act specifically excludes claims arising from the administration of the Trading with the Enemy Act (28 U.S.C. § 2680(w)). Price attempted to get round this hurdle by challenging the validity of the vesting order, but the Court found that the time limit for such claims had long since passed. As such, the Court of Appeal ruled that the District Court had no subject matter jurisdiction over Price's claim.
. The publishers of Time then passed them on to the U.S. Army between 1981 and 1983.
The Court of Appeal found that Price's claim concerning the Carlisle archive was untimely. The Federal Tort Claims Act requires that a plaintiff must either have received a written denial from the government or waited six months before starting a lawsuit (28 U.S.C. § 2675(a)). As Price had not fulfilled this requirement, there was no waiver of sovereign immunity.
United States
The United States of America is a federal constitutional republic comprising fifty states and a federal district...
in Germany
Germany
Germany , officially the Federal Republic of Germany , is a federal parliamentary republic in Europe. The country consists of 16 states while the capital and largest city is Berlin. Germany covers an area of 357,021 km2 and has a largely temperate seasonal climate...
in the aftermath of World War II
World War II
World War II, or the Second World War , was a global conflict lasting from 1939 to 1945, involving most of the world's nations—including all of the great powers—eventually forming two opposing military alliances: the Allies and the Axis...
. It was decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is a federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the district courts in the following districts:* Eastern District of Louisiana* Middle District of Louisiana...
, which overturned an initial judgment of the District Court for the Southern District of Texas
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas is the Federal district court with jurisdiction over the southern part of Texas...
. The decision was based on the definition of the tort
Tort
A tort, in common law jurisdictions, is a wrong that involves a breach of a civil duty owed to someone else. It is differentiated from a crime, which involves a breach of a duty owed to society in general...
of conversion
Conversion (law)
Conversion is a common law tort. A conversion is a voluntary act by one person inconsistent with the ownership rights of another. It is a tort of strict liability...
and the applicability of the principle of sovereign immunity
Sovereign immunity
Sovereign immunity, or crown immunity, is a legal doctrine by which the sovereign or state cannot commit a legal wrong and is immune from civil suit or criminal prosecution....
.
Among the artwork which formed the subject matter of the lawsuit were many photographs by German photographer Heinrich Hoffmann
Heinrich Hoffmann
Heinrich Hoffmann was a German photographer best known for his many published photographs of Adolf Hitler.-Early life and career:...
.
Background
The Court of Appeals described Price as "a Texas businessman", and noted that Price had described himself on the cover of a self-published book as the "owner of one of the largest collections of Hitler art and an internationally acknowledged expert on the subject".The property in dispute was a number of works of art which had been owned by Heinrich Hoffmann
Heinrich Hoffmann
Heinrich Hoffmann was a German photographer best known for his many published photographs of Adolf Hitler.-Early life and career:...
(1885–1957), a German photographer best known for his many published photographs of Adolf Hitler
Adolf Hitler
Adolf Hitler was an Austrian-born German politician and the leader of the National Socialist German Workers Party , commonly referred to as the Nazi Party). He was Chancellor of Germany from 1933 to 1945, and head of state from 1934 to 1945...
.
The Court of Appeals considered the property in three distinct categories:
- four watercolor paintings by Adolf HitlerAdolf HitlerAdolf Hitler was an Austrian-born German politician and the leader of the National Socialist German Workers Party , commonly referred to as the Nazi Party). He was Chancellor of Germany from 1933 to 1945, and head of state from 1934 to 1945...
that had been purchased by (and/or given to) Hoffmann; - a photographic archive compiled by Hoffmann and his son, including many iconic images of Nazi GermanyNazi GermanyNazi Germany , also known as the Third Reich , but officially called German Reich from 1933 to 1943 and Greater German Reich from 26 June 1943 onward, is the name commonly used to refer to the state of Germany from 1933 to 1945, when it was a totalitarian dictatorship ruled by...
, that had been ceded to the U.S. National Archives and Records AdministrationNational Archives and Records AdministrationThe National Archives and Records Administration is an independent agency of the United States government charged with preserving and documenting government and historical records and with increasing public access to those documents, which comprise the National Archives...
(NARA) after its seizure by U.S. forces in occupied Germany; - a much smaller photographic archive, known as the "Carlisle archive", that had been ceded to the U.S. Military History InstituteU.S. Army Heritage and Education CenterThe United States Army Heritage and Education Center , in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, is the U.S. Army's primary historical research facility. Formed in 1999, the center consists of the Military History Institute , the Army Heritage Museum , the U.S. Army Conservation Center, and the Visitor and...
in Carlisle, PennsylvaniaCarlisle, PennsylvaniaCarlisle is a borough in and the county seat of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, United States. The name is traditionally pronounced with emphasis on the second syllable. Carlisle is located within the Cumberland Valley, a highly productive agricultural region. As of the 2010 census, the borough...
, by Time-Life, Inc.
Price had purchased this property from Hoffmann's heirs in Germany in the early 1980s, and then demanded the United States government to turn it over to him. When the U.S. government refused, he filed the lawsuit on August 9, 1983.
District Court
The United States District Court for the Southern District of TexasUnited States District Court for the Southern District of Texas
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas is the Federal district court with jurisdiction over the southern part of Texas...
denied a motion by the U.S. government in February 1989 to have the case dismissed, and entered a partial summary judgment
Summary judgment
In law, a summary judgment is a determination made by a court without a full trial. Such a judgment may be issued as to the merits of an entire case, or of specific issues in that case....
in Price's favor, chastising the government for its defense strategy: "Instead of property law arguments, the government relie[d] upon political denigration of the artist and the archivist." The District Court awarded Price almost $8 million in damages
Damages
In law, damages is an award, typically of money, to be paid to a person as compensation for loss or injury; grammatically, it is a singular noun, not plural.- Compensatory damages :...
from the United States' conversion
Conversion (law)
Conversion is a common law tort. A conversion is a voluntary act by one person inconsistent with the ownership rights of another. It is a tort of strict liability...
of the paintings and archives, including Price's loss of use of the property from 1983. Both sides appealed the District Court judgment, with Price claiming $41 million in damages.
Court of Appeal
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth CircuitUnited States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is a federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the district courts in the following districts:* Eastern District of Louisiana* Middle District of Louisiana...
upheld the appeal of the U.S. government in November 1995, rejecting Price's appeal at the same time. It ruled that the United States was entitled to sovereign immunity
Sovereign immunity
Sovereign immunity, or crown immunity, is a legal doctrine by which the sovereign or state cannot commit a legal wrong and is immune from civil suit or criminal prosecution....
against tort
Tort
A tort, in common law jurisdictions, is a wrong that involves a breach of a civil duty owed to someone else. It is differentiated from a crime, which involves a breach of a duty owed to society in general...
claims except where this had been expressly waived. By distinct reasoning, the Court found that there was no waiver for either the watercolors or the photographic archive.
Watercolors
The four watercolors by Adolf Hitler had been stored (along with other artwork) in a castle during World War II, and were discovered by the U.S. Army as it occupied Germany. They were originally transferred to a central collecting point in MunichMunich Central Collecting Point
The Munich Central Collecting Point was a depot used by the Monuments, Fine Arts, and Archives program after the end of the Second World War to process, photograph and redistribute artwork and cultural artefacts that had been confiscated by the Nazis and hidden throughout Germany and Austria...
, where they were registered and cataloged. The Hitler watercolors were classified as "military objects" and transferred from Munich
Munich
Munich The city's motto is "" . Before 2006, it was "Weltstadt mit Herz" . Its native name, , is derived from the Old High German Munichen, meaning "by the monks' place". The city's name derives from the monks of the Benedictine order who founded the city; hence the monk depicted on the city's coat...
to Wiesbaden
Wiesbaden
Wiesbaden is a city in southwest Germany and the capital of the federal state of Hesse. It has about 275,400 inhabitants, plus approximately 10,000 United States citizens...
, and then to the United States around June 1950. Other artwork belong to Hoffmann was returned to him.
The Court did not rule on the legally of the "confiscation". Instead, it found that the (allegedly) tortuous act – that is the act which went against the owner's interests – occurred when the watercolors were separated from the rest of Hoffmann's property and sent from Munich to Wiesbaden. As the act occurred in Germany, a claim in the U.S. federal courts was debarred under the Federal Tort Claims Act
Federal Tort Claims Act
The Federal Tort Claims Act or "FTCA", , is a statute enacted by the United States Congress in 1948. "Federal Tort Claims Act" was also previously the official short title passed by the Seventy-ninth Congress on August 2, 1946 as Title IV of the Legislative Reorganization Act, 60 Stat...
, specifically 28 U.S.C. § 2680(k).
Photographic archive
The main photographic archive had been used in evidence at the Nuremberg trialsNuremberg Trials
The Nuremberg Trials were a series of military tribunals, held by the victorious Allied forces of World War II, most notable for the prosecution of prominent members of the political, military, and economic leadership of the defeated Nazi Germany....
, and was shipped to the United States "around the time of the Berlin Airlift" (1948–1949). On June 25, 1951, the Attorney General, acting pursuant to the Trading with the Enemy Act, 50 U.S.C.App. § 1–33, vested in himself all rights in the photographs and photographic images "to be held, used, administered, liquidated, sold, or otherwise dealt with in the interest of and for the benefit of the United States." The archive was later transferred to the United States National Archives.
The Federal Tort Claims Act specifically excludes claims arising from the administration of the Trading with the Enemy Act (28 U.S.C. § 2680(w)). Price attempted to get round this hurdle by challenging the validity of the vesting order, but the Court found that the time limit for such claims had long since passed. As such, the Court of Appeal ruled that the District Court had no subject matter jurisdiction over Price's claim.
Carlisle archive
The Carlisle archive is much smaller and less historically significant than the main photographic archive, and its history is less clear. The photographs appear to have been removed from Germany in the late 1940s, by or on behalf of Time magazineTime (magazine)
Time is an American news magazine. A European edition is published from London. Time Europe covers the Middle East, Africa and, since 2003, Latin America. An Asian edition is based in Hong Kong...
. The publishers of Time then passed them on to the U.S. Army between 1981 and 1983.
The Court of Appeal found that Price's claim concerning the Carlisle archive was untimely. The Federal Tort Claims Act requires that a plaintiff must either have received a written denial from the government or waited six months before starting a lawsuit (28 U.S.C. § 2675(a)). As Price had not fulfilled this requirement, there was no waiver of sovereign immunity.