green
Positive treatment
3.4 score
Treatment trajectory · 1984 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1984
2005
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited "see"
A. Brod, Inc. v. SK&I CO., LLC
See Taquino v. Teledyne Monarch Rubber, 893 F.2d 1488, 1501 (5th Cir.1990) (citing Smith v. Weinstein, 578 F.Supp. 1297 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 738 F.2d 419 (2d Cir.1984)); Architectronics, 935 F.Supp. at 438 ; American Movie Classics Co. v. Turner Entertainment Co., 922 F.Supp. 926, 931 (S.D.N.Y.1996); Brignoli v. Balch Hardy & Scheinman, Inc., 645 F.Supp. 1201, 1205 (S.D.N.Y.1986); 1 Nimmer § 1.0 l[B][l][a], at 1-15 to 1 — 16.
discussed
Cited "see"
Arden v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc.
See Smith v. Weinstein, 578 F.Supp. 1297, 1302 (S.D.N.Y.) (noting that “[sjome similarities exist, but at a level of expression either too general or too insignificant to be protecüble.”), aff'd, 738 F.2d 419 (2d Cir.1984).
cited
Cited "see"
Mindel v. Image Point Productions, Inc.
See Salen AB v. Pierot & Sons, Inc., 559 F.Supp. 503 (S.D.N.Y.1983), aff 'd 738 F.2d 419 (2d Cir.1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
United Retail & Wholesale Employees Teamsters Union Local No. 115 Pension Plan v. Yahn & Mc Donnell, Inc.
See Trustees of the Retirement Fund of the Fur Manufacturing Industry v. Lazar-Wisotzky, Inc., 550 F.Supp. 35 (S.D.N.Y.1982), aff'd without opinion, 738 F.2d 419 (2d Cir.1984); Commission Drivers Local 187 Pension Fund v. Hertz Corp., 3 EBC 1801 (E.D.Pa.1982). 22 On the other hand, there is strong language in the statutory scheme contradicting the apparent implication of Secs. 1399(c), 1401(d) and 1451 that there is a cause of action to collect withdrawal liability payments pending arbitration.
discussed
Cited "see"
United Retail & Wholesale Employees Teamsters Union Local No. 115 Pension Plan v. Yahn & Mc Donnell, Inc.
See Trustees of the Retirement Fund of the Fur Manufacturing Industry v. Lazar-Wisotzky, Inc., 550 F.Supp. 35 (S.D.N.Y.1982), aff'd without opinion, 738 F.2d 419 (2d Cir. 1984); Commission Drivers Local 187 Pension Fund v. Hertz Corp., 3 EBC 1801 (E.D.Pa.1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
Jaspan v. Certified Industries, Inc.
See Trustees of Retirement Fund v. Lazar-Wisotzky, Inc., 550 F.Supp. 35 (S.D.N.Y.1982), affirmed by summary order, 738 F.2d 419 (2d Cir.1984) (“the Act imposes strict liability upon employers who discontinue contributions to a multiemployer plan, and ... it, in effect, creates an account stated in the amount the withdrawing employer has been notified it must pay as calculated by the plan’s actuary”).
cited
Cited "see"
Combs v. Western Coal Corp.
See Trustees of the Retirement Fund v. Lazar-Wisotzky, Inc., 550 F.Supp. 35, 38 (S.D.N.Y.1982), aff'd mem., 738 F.2d 419 (2d Cir.1984).
cited
Cited "see"
Morrison v. Lefevre
See Smith v. Weinstein, 578 F.Supp. 1297, 1305-06 (S.D.N.Y.) (declining pendent jurisdiction given “uncertain nature of state-law issues”), aff'd, 738 F.2d 419 (2d Cir.1984).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Eaton v. National Broadcasting Co.
In other words, “only a uniquely developed character with some degree of novelty is copyrightable.” Id.; see also Smith v. Weinstein, 578 F.Supp. 1297, 1303 (S.D.N.Y.1984) (“No character infringement claim can succeed unless plaintiffs original conception sufficiently developed the character, and defendants have copied this development and not merely the broader outlines.”), aff'd, 738 F.2d 419 (2d Cir.1984) (table).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. v. American Honda Motor Co.
See, e.g., Smith v. Weinstein, 578 F.Supp. 1297, 1303 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 738 F.2d 419 (2d Cir.1984) (“no character infringement claim can succeed unless plaintiffs original conception sufficiently developed the character, and defendants have copied this development and not merely the broader outlines”).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Green v. Lindsey
In attempting to refine the inquiry as to characters, the Second Circuit has stated: “Stirring one’s memory of a copyrighted character is not the same as appearing to be substantially *487 similar to that character, and only the latter is infringement.” Warner Bros., 720 F.2d at 242; see also Smith v. Weinstein, 578 F.Supp. 1297, 1303 (D.C.N.Y.1984) (“No character infringement claim can succeed unless plaintiffs original conception sufficiently developed the character, and defendants have copied this development and not merely the broader outlines.”), aff'd without op., 738 F.2d 419 …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Nobel v. Bangor Hydro-Electric Co.
See also Smith v. Weinstein, 578 F.Supp. 1297, 1307 (S.D.N.Y.), aff 'd, 738 F.2d 419 (1984) (ideas, which cannot be protected by copyright, can be consideration for a contract that creates rights qualitatively different from copyright rights).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Jones v. CBS, INC.
See also Smith v. Weinstein, 578 F.Supp. 1297, 1303 (S.D.N.Y.), affd without opinion, 738 F.2d 419 (2d Cir.1984).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Connors v. Brady-Cline Coal Co.
Indeed, ... under the MPPAA’s statutory scheme, any assessment of irreparable harm flowing from an injunctive order regarding interim withdrawal liability payments would almost certainly favor the pension fund.” Id.; see also Trustees of Retirement Fund v. Lazar-Wisotzky, Inc., 550 F.Supp. 35 (S.D.N.Y.1982) (Congress intended to impose the immediate payment requirement despite the substantial hardship to an employer which might result), aff'd, 738 F.2d 419 (2nd Cir.1984).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Zambito v. Paramount Pictures Corp.
See, e.g., Smith v. Weinstein, 578 F.Supp. 1297 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd without op., 738 F.2d 419 (2d Cir.1984).
Purcell
v.
Flying Tiger Line, Inc
v.
Flying Tiger Line, Inc
84-7102.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
May 23, 1984.
738 F.2d 419
Published
Purcell
v.
Flying Tiger Line, Inc.
84-7102
United States Court of Appeals,
Second Circuit.
5/23/84
1
S.D.N.Y.
AFFIRMED