Talk:Price v. United States

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Photography Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Photography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of photography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhotographyWikipedia:WikiProject PhotographyTemplate:WikiProject PhotographyPhotography articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Opening para

The lead para omits the most important aspect of the case -- what, in fact, the court ruled. That's like writing about Brown v. Board of Education without mentioning that segregation was found to be unconstitutional. 71.175.4.207 (talk) 18:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear

As the previous poster said 10 years ago, it's not clear of the contents of the case and the verdict. Is there any way to make clearer what the actual case entailed and what the results were?

It seems that the artwork was purchased by a Mr. Price, but the US thought that they actually owned it for some reason, having removed it after WW2? Logical outcome (to me), is that the person who bought the art owns the art, but was that the result? What was the actual verdict here? 177.194.178.151 (talk) 05:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]