Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Sam Francis Foundation v. Christies, Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided May 5, 2015No. 12-56067, 12-56068, 12-56077Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partReinhardt, Circuit Judge

In 1976, California passed the California Resale Royalty Act (the Act) — a law that, for the last 39 years, has secured invaluable benefits for talented artists. The Act requires that when a fine art sale takes place in California or the seller of the art (sometimes referred to in this opinion as the owner) resides in California, the seller or the seller’s agent must pay a five-percent royalty to the artist. Cal. Civ.Code § 986(a).1 Under the Act, when a wealthy *1327collector of modern art purchases for several million dollars a work of art that the prior owner bought for a minimal amount from a…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. United States v. RainesSupreme Court of the United States · 1960
  2. Baldwin v. G. A. F. Seelig, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1935
  3. Calfarm Insurance v. DeukmejianCalifornia Supreme Court · 1989
  4. Walnut Creek Manor v. Fair Employment & Housing CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
  5. People v. KellyCalifornia Supreme Court · 2010

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API