Kremen v. Cohen’s Empirical Analysis
337 F.3d 1024 · 2003
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 9 district · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 68 later decisions — most recently December 2024 · most notably Kaempe v. Myers (2004), Thyroff v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance (2006)
10 federal appellate · 9 district · 13 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (§ 43 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act))
Relies on 51 Cal. 3d 120 - Moore v. Regents of University of California · Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v. Augusta National Inc. · 30 Cal. 4th 1342 - Intel Corp. v. Hamidi · 9 Cal. 2d 409 - Herbert v. Lankershim · Klamath Water Users Protective Ass'n v. Patterson
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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In short, California does not follow the Restatement ‘s strict requirement that some document must actually represent the owner's intangible property right. On the contrary, courts routinely apply the tort [of conversion] to intangibles without inquiring whether the are merged in a document.” Kremen v. Cohen, 337 F.3d 1024, 1033 (9th Cir.2002) (explaining that California jurisprudence”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“within the meaning of the applicable New York statute. Id. at 931. The same principles may apply here to the RICO forfeiture provision, 18 U.S.C. § 1963 (b)(2), and applicable state law. 47 In California, courts apply a three-part test to determine whether a property right exists:”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“First, there must be an interest capable of precise definition; second, it must be capable of exclusive possession or control; and third, the putative owner must have established a legitimate claim to exclusivity.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.