Pissarro painting confiscated by Nazis at center of Supreme Court arguments

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Source: CNN

Pissarro painting confiscated by Nazis at center of Supreme Court arguments

By Tierney Sneed

Updated 3:10 PM ET, Tue January 18, 2022



The Impressionist painting by Camille Pissarro called the "Rue Saint-Honore apre-midi. Effet de Pluie (Rue Saint-Honore Afternoon, Rain Effect)," in the Thyssen-Bornemisza Museum in Madrid.

(CNN) -- In a case involving a Nazi confiscation of a Jewish family's painting, the Supreme Court on Tuesday grappled with how federal courts should decide whether California law or a foreign country's law should apply. ... The case, which was filed in federal court in California, is now before the Supreme Court after nearly 17 years of litigation.

The descendants of Jewish Holocaust survivors are seeking the return of a painting that their family was forced to hand over to the Nazis and that eventually ended up in a public Madrid, Spain, art museum. ... The art piece at the center of the case is a 1897 French Impressionist work by the famed painter Camille Pissarro titled "Rue Saint Honoré, Afternoon, Rain Effect."

It was owned by the Cassirer family in Germany until 1939, when Lilly Cassirer Neubauer was forced to hand it over to the Nazis in order to obtain an exit visa she needed to flee the country. A Nazi art dealer confiscated the painting in exchange for $360 that was put in an account that Neubauer could not access. In the decades that followed, a series of sales and trades took the painting to California, then to a gallery in New York, from where it was purchased by a Swiss collector who eventually sold much of his collection, including the painting, to the foundation, which he set up with the Spanish government.

A lawyer for the art foundation, the Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection, asked the Supreme Court to set out a "fair and balanced way" for federal courts to approach these kinds of cases, as different states have different legal tests that could be applied, depending on where the family had brought the case.

{snip}

Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/18/politics/pissarro-nazi-supreme-court/index.html

[Coventina]

1. "Fair and balanced Nazi confiscation"

Well, we know how this pro-Nazi court will rule.



on edit: little-known fact: Pissaro was Jewish.

[mia]

2. Return the painting to the Cassirer family.

That is the only "fair and balanced way". Those who traded in stolen goods knew what they were doing.

[Omaha Steve]

4. I agree

[elleng]

3. Remember Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer.

I (also called The Lady in Gold or The Woman in Gold) is a painting by Gustav Klimt, completed between 1903 and 1907. The portrait was commissioned by the sitter's husband, Ferdinand Bloch-Bauer [de], a Jewish banker and sugar producer. The painting was stolen by the Nazis in 1941 and displayed at the Österreichische Galerie Belvedere. The portrait is the final and most fully representative work of Klimt's golden phase. It was the first of two depictions of Adele by Klimt—the second was completed in 1912; these were two of several works by the artist that the family owned.'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portrait_of_Adele_Bloch-Bauer_I

These cases are NOT simple.

See the movie, if you can. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woman_in_Gold_(film)

[cab67]

5. that's true in natural history museums as well.

I have friends who were involved in discussions with indigenous American communities about artifacts held by museums. Not all were collected by grave robbers; they would have been considered purchased or freely donated by the museum curators at the time. The problem is that the indigenous makers of these artifacts didn't necessarily see it that way or understand the full implications of the transaction.

Everyone in the repatriation effort worked hard to be fully respectful of the people who created these objects while also conserving some of them for scholars, an increasing number of whom are from these communities themselves. And some of that included discussions of how, exactly, the items came to be in the museum.

I get the sense that's similar to many of the arguments being made by art collectors and museums - were these art pieces stolen, or were they sold, given away, or abandoned?

As far as I'm concerned, though, this case is fairly clear - the painting should be returned to the family.

[msfiddlestix]

10. The film Lady in Gold was fascinating and informative

Helen Mirren's portrayal was amazing.

[elleng]

12. Yes, and demonstrates how NOT easy these issues are.

[CTyankee]

11. Fabulous story! i wrote about it in my first book.

I loved the movie also.

If you haven't seen "The Monuments Men" I highly recommend it. A bit fanciful, but not so much that it bothered me. I am eternally grateful to George Clooney for making it (and for being such a handsome hero!). I must admit I have a real star crush on the guy!

[elleng]

13. Monuments Men one of my favorites, yank!

[CTyankee]

15. Art heists make for great books and movies.

The art heist in Boston was a great favorite, since the Griswold and the MFA are two of my beloved museums!

[mia]

17. Thank you. elleng. Love this movie!

Just watched it here.
https://pluto.tv/en/on-demand/movies/woman-in-gold-2014-1-1?utm_medium=textsearch&utm_source=google

[NullTuples]

6. It will be interesting, given the judges involved.

"different states have different legal tests that could be applied, depending on where the family had brought the case"

I thought the goal of Federalist Society judges is to have nearly all of our laws determined within the borders of each state?

[rsdsharp]

8. This is what is called a conflict of laws case.

These are often like diving into a huge tub of worms. The various states, and or countries, which might have an interest in the case not only have substantive laws relative to the subject (e. g. who owns, or should own the painting?) but they also have their own conflicts laws (which state or country’s substantive law should we apply — ours? or the other state’s if it’s different — and that state’s laws might say to apply the first state’s laws). So the first question for the court is whether it has jurisdiction, and if so, what law to apply.

These kind of cases can drive you crazy.

[cstanleytech]

7. Any painting, artwork or valuable that was stolen by the Nazis either

directly or due to people being coerced to sale should be returned to the rightful owners heirs.

[Princess Turandot]

9. The court isn't deciding who owns the painting: it's deciding whether the laws of California or ...

...the laws of Spain should be used to answer that question. California state law (applied in a federal court case, for reasons too long to explain) would in all likelihood rule for the heirs, while Spanish law would allow the museum to keep the work. Several circuits have apparently ruled in legally similar cases that the state laws should prevail; in this particular case, however, the 9th Circuit has previously ruled for the museum.

The outcome of this case has broader application to cases brought under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which controls when/how a case can be brought in US courts against a foreign sovereign/entity. I assume that's why they accepted the case (given the 9th Circuit's split).

[elleng]

14. Right. Thanks.

So often, the public is confused by such matters.

[sdfernando]

16. The painting's provenance is established

even if you accept that Lilly Cassirer Neubauer sold it to flee Germany it is proven that she was never paid for it. Therefore the family is still the rightful owner. The museum should should give it up with no further claim.

[nuxvomica]

18. According to common law, contracts made under duress are not binding

I don't know why they can't just decide it that way. The $360 payment, which Lilly never got anyway, doesn't even matter because the transaction was made with undue influence, tainting every subsequent transaction regardless of how correctly they were made.