Rosen v. Marlin

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding money was not identifiable because it was in a joint bank account and both parties had the right to control the funds
• where damages sought in tort are same as damages sought in contract tort damages are not recoverable
• in action by one joint venturer against another, in order to find civil theft, the plaintiff must show that the defendant had the intent to commit a theft
• where the compensatory damages sought for a tort are identical to the compensatory damages sought for breach of contract, compensatory damages and punitive damages for the tort are not recoverable
• “a necessary element for establishing the crime of theft is that the defendant had, prior to the commission of the act, an intent to commit a theft.”
• “This is not a case where a party intentionally received a specifically identifiable sum of money knowing that he had no right to take it and who refused to give it back”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).