green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
10.7 score
“the three companies owned copyrights in the drawings, technical manuals, blue-prints, and computer software used to make the modifications. . . . the companies did not register their copyrights with the united states copyright office.”
Treatment trajectory · 2002 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2002
2014
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation v. Matthews
the three companies owned copyrights in the drawings, technical manuals, blue-prints, and computer software used to make the modifications. . . . the companies did not register their copyrights with the united states copyright office.
cited
Cited "see"
Wilson v. Dynatone Publ'g Co.
See In re World , 303 F.3d at 1125-26 ; Broadcast Music, Inc. , 104 F.3d at 1165 .
cited
Cited "see"
Wilson v. Dynatone
See In re World, 303 F.3d at 1125–26; Broadcast Music, Inc., 104 F.3d at 1165 . 5 1 (“[I]n copyright cases the discovery rule is a common‐law gloss.”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Montz v. Pilgrim Films & Television, Inc.
(2×)
See In re World Auxiliary Power Co., 303 F.3d 1120 , 1131 (9th Cir.2002) ("[C]opyright is created every time people set to paper, or fingers to keyboard, and affix their thoughts in a tangible medium. . .").
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Frederico Angel Villalobos, Aka, Julio Rodriguez-Ramirez
(2×)
See Minore, 292 F.3d 1109 , appellee's pet. for panel reh'g denied, 302 F.3d 1065 (9th Cir.2002), appellant's pet. for panel reh'g and reh'g en banc denied, 303 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir.2002), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 123 S.Ct. 948 , 154 L.Ed.2d 848 (2003). 7 The government also claims that Villalobos suffered no prejudice because his actual sentence was below the maximum for his offense, and argues that as a result the Rule 11 error could not have affected his decision to plead guilty.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Gary William MINORE, AKA Skip, Defendant-Appellant
v.
Gary William MINORE, AKA Skip, Defendant-Appellant
99-30381.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Sep 10, 2002.
Annette L. Hayes, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee., Lee Coveil, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Fletcher, Fisher, Schwarzer.
Published
Citer courts: D. Alaska (1)
ORDER
The panel has voted to deny appellant’s petition for rehearing. Judge Fisher voted to deny the suggestion for rehearing en banc, and Judge Fletcher and Judge Schwarzer recommended denial of the suggestion for rehearing en banc.
The full court has been advised of the suggestion for rehearing en banc and no judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed. R.App. P. 35.
The petition for panel rehearing with suggestion for rehearing en banc, filed August 1, 2002, is DENIED.