Kopperl v. Bain’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 1 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Conversion can be distinguished from statutory theft in two ways ...: First, statutory theft requires an intent to deprive another of his property; second, conversion requires the owner to be harmed by a defendant's conduct. Therefore, statutory theft requires a plaintiff to prove the additional element of intent over and above what he or she must demonstrate to prove conversion.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Vossbrinck v. Eckert Seamans Cherin, & Mellott, LLC · 332 F. Supp. 3d 488 - Stanley Works Isr. Ltd. v. 500 Grp., Inc.

2. “If in order to sustain a claim for statutory theft, when coupled with a claim for conversion arising out of the same facts, a plaintiff must prove 'the additional element of intent over and above what he or she must demonstrate to prove conversion,' it necessarily follows that a plaintiff who cannot prove conversion also cannot prove statutory theft.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Vossbrinck v. Eckert Seamans Cherin, & Mellott, LLC · 332 F. Supp. 3d 488 - Stanley Works Isr. Ltd. v. 500 Grp., Inc.

3. “The plaintiff need not prove that the defendant caused the breach of an actual contract; proof of interference with even an unenforceable promise is enough.... A cause of action for tortious interference with a business expectancy requires proof that the defendant was guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, intimidation or molestation ... or that the defendant acted maliciously.... It is also true, however, that not every act that disturbs a contract or business expectancy is actionable.... A defendant is guilty of tortious interference if he has engaged in improper conduct.... [T]he plaintiff [is required] to plead and prove at least some improper motive or improper means.... "Stated simply, to substantiate a claim of tortious interference with a business expectancy, there must be evidence that the interference resulted from the defendant's commission of a tort.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 164 Conn. App. 686 - Brown v. Otake