Weber v. Deutschberger

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a separate claim for conversion involving purely intangible property cannot stand, even though the intangible property rights flow from a tangible master recording
• noting that “an action for conversion will not normally lie, when it involves intangible property”
• explaining that where a defendant merely interfered with plaintiff’s property then the cause of action is for trespass, while denial of plaintiff’s dominion, rights, or possession is the basis of an action for conversion
• cause of action for conversion accrues when the possessor “first began using plaintiffs property as its own”
• “[A] possessor openly dealing with property as her own . . . precludes the demand and refusal rule if the possessor knew the property was not hers before doing so.”
• “For the purposes of the Statute of Limitations, if the action is one for conversion, the time period will run from when that cause of action accrued — that is, when the conversion occurred.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).