Devenco Inc. v. Emerson Radio & Phonograph Corp.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding evidence was insufficient to establish that defendant knew vehicle was stolen where it was stolen weeks earlier and he referred to it as his
• holding possession 37 days after theft of automobile was not recent, and no other evidence linked defendant to theft
• possession thirty-seven days after the theft of an automobile was not recent, and no other evidence linked the defendant to the theft
• possession of an automobile 37 days after the car was stolen is “not very recent”.
• possession of an automobile 37 days after the car was stolen is \not very recent\.
• defendant’s possession of car 37 days after it was stolen “was not very ‘recent’” and thus did not support guilty knowledge inference

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).