Jack Cain, D/B/A Airport Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., a Pennsylvania Corp., 972 F.2d 1337 (9th Cir. 1992). · Go Syfert
Search
Jack Cain, D/B/A Airport Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., a Pennsylvania Corp., 972 F.2d 1337 (9th Cir. 1992). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
42 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Stewart v. Wachowski (cacd, 2006-03-27)
Treatment trajectory · 1992 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1992 2009 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Stewart v. Wachowski
C.D. Cal. · 2006 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., See Chiate v. Morris, 972 F.2d 1337 , 1992 WL 197591, * 7, n. 4 (9th Cir. Aug. 17, 1992) (Unpub.Disp.) (discussing the extrinsic and intrinsic tests, and noting that if plaintiff cannot prove access, “a 'striking similarity’ between the works at issue will give rise to an inference of copying”); Thimbleberries, Inc. v. C & F Enterprises, Inc., 142 F.Supp.2d 1132, 1139 (D.Minn.2001) (using the Eighth Circuit’s extrinsic/intrinsic test to assess striking similarity). 144 .
Jack Cain, D/B/A Airport Chevron U.S.A., Inc.
v.
Chevron U.S.A., Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation
91-35535.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Jul 16, 1992.
972 F.2d 1337
Unpublished

972 F.2d 1337

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Jack CAIN, d/b/a Airport Chevron U.S.A., Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CHEVRON U.S.A., INC., a Pennsylvania corporation, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 91-35535.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 6, 1992.[*]
Decided July 16, 1992.

Before GOODWIN, TANG and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges.

1

MEMORANDUM*

2

This matter is affirmed substantially for the reasons stated by the district judge in his opinion.

3

AFFIRMED.

*

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for submission on the record and briefs and without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); Ninth Circuit Rule 34-4

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3