# United States v. Werner Bruchhausen

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · October 5, 1992 · 977 F.2d 464

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9483520

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Werner BRUCHHAUSEN, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** October 5, 1992
- **Citations:** 977 F.2d 464; 92 Daily Journal DAR 13601; 92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8273; 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 24725; 1992 WL 247631
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Kozinski
- **Judges:** Canby, Kozinski, Fernandez
- **Cited by:** 29 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9483520

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that the right to control future disposition of goods sold was not a property right within the meaning of the wire fraud statute in a case in which the defendants falsely represented to a manufacturer that goods would remain in the United States
- noting that the victim man- ufacturers were not “defrauded of ‘property’ within the meaning of the [wire fraud] statute” because they “received the full sale price for their products” and therefore “clearly suffered no monetary loss”
- declining to recognize as property a seller's right to control "the destination of [its] products after sale," even though such a right would, by hypothesis, be exclusive to the seller and potentially economically valuable

## Opinion text

KOZINSKI, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
Because the majority opinion and Judge Fernandez’s concurrence are entirely consistent, and each interprets the applicable law correctly, I join both.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9483520. Public record. Not legal advice.