green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
6.0 score
“the historical and still the primary purpose of inter-pleader is to enable a neutral stakeholder ... to shield itself from liability for paying over the stake to the wrong party.”
Treatment trajectory · 1985 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1985
2005
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 25 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Alfa Financial Corp. v. Key
the historical and still the primary purpose of inter-pleader is to enable a neutral stakeholder ... to shield itself from liability for paying over the stake to the wrong party.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance v. Shan Trac, Inc.
Id. at 958.
discussed
Cited "see"
Rita Mulcahy v. Cheetah Learning LLC Jeff Schurrer
In the words of a leading copyright treatise, “Unless sufficient of the pre-existing work is contained in the later work so as to constitute the latter an infringement of the former, the latter by definition is not a derivative work.” 2 Nimmer on Copyright § 8.09[A], p. 8-138 (2004); see Litchfield v. Spielberg, 736 F.2d 1352, 1357 (9th Cir. 1984) (“a work is not derivative unless it has been substantially copied from the pri- or work”), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1052 , 105 S.Ct. 1753 , 84 L.Ed.2d 817 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
M.H. Segan Ltd. Partnership v. Hasbro, Inc.
Accord Litchfield v. Spielberg, 736 F.2d 1352, 1357 (9th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1052 , 105 S.Ct. 1753 , 84 L.Ed.2d 817 (1985) (work must infringe underlying work to be derivative); Peter Pan Fabrics, Inc. v. Rosstex Fabrics, Inc., 733 F.Supp. 174, 177 (S.D.N.Y.1990) (quoting Nimmer on Copyright ).
cited
Cited "see"
Lamothe v. Atlantic Recording Corporation
See Litchfield v. Spielberg, 736 F.2d 1352, 1358 (9th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1052 , 105 S.Ct. 1753 , 84 L.Ed.2d 817 (1985).
cited
Cited "see"
Lamothe v. Atlantic Recording Corp.
See Litchfield v. Spielberg, 736 F.2d 1352, 1358 (9th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1052 , 105 S.Ct. 1753 , 84 L.Ed.2d 817 (1985).
cited
Cited "see"
Shelley Aliotti and John Aliotti v. R. Dakin & Co., a California Corporation
See Litchfield v. Spielberg, 736 F.2d 1352, 1357 (1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1052 , 105 S.Ct. 1753 , 84 L.Ed.2d 817 (1985); Krofft, 562 F.2d at 1164 .
cited
Cited "see"
Kraft v. Jacka
See Litchfield v. Spielberg, 736 F.2d 1352, 1358 (9th Cir.1984), ce rt. denied, 470 U.S. 1052 , 105 S.Ct. 1753 , 84 L.Ed.2d 817 (1985).
cited
Cited "see"
49er Chevrolet, Inc. v. General Motors Corporation, Etc.
See Litchfield v. Spielberg, 736 F.2d 1352, 1358 (9th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1052 , 105 S.Ct. 1753 , 84 L.Ed.2d 817 (1985).
cited
Cited "see"
King v. California
See Litchfield v. Spielberg, 736 F.2d 1352, 1357 (9th Cir.1984), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 1753 , 84 L.Ed.2d 817 (1985) (articulating the standard for motions to dismiss).
cited
Cited "see"
King v. State Of California
See Litchfield v. Spielberg, 736 F.2d 1352, 1357 (9th Cir.1984), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 1753 , 84 L.Ed.2d 817 (1985) (articulating the standard for motions to dismiss).
cited
Cited "see"
Mayor of Baltimore v. Baltimore Football Club Inc.
See Indianapolis Colts v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 741 F.2d 954 (7th Cir.1984), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 1753 , 84 L.Ed.2d 817 (1985).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
deBarros v. Walmart Stores, Inc.
See also, Litchfield v. Spielberg, 736 F.2d 1352, 1357 (9th Cir.1984), ce rt. denied, 470 U.S. 1052 , 105 S.Ct. 1753 , 84 L.Ed.2d 817 (1985).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Lonberg v. Freddie Mac
See also, Litchfield v. Spielberg, 736 F.2d 1352, 1357 (9th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1052 , 105 S.Ct. 1753 , 84 L.Ed.2d 817 (1985).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
GALAXY GAMING OF OREGON, LLC v. Burdick
See also, Litchfield v. Spielberg, 736 F.2d 1352, 1357 (9th Cir. 1984), cert, denied, 470 U.S. 1052 , 105 S.Ct. 1753 , 84 L.Ed.2d 817 (1985).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Galaxy Gaming of Oregon, LLC v. Burdick
See also, Litchfield v. Spielberg, 736 F.2d 1352, 1357 (9th Cir.1984), ce rt. denied, 470 U.S. 1052 , 105 S.Ct. 1753 , 84 L.Ed.2d 817 (1985).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Martinez-Delacruz v. Stuart Olson Farms, Inc.
See also, Litchfield v. Spielberg, 736 F.2d 1352, 1357 (9th Cir.1984), ce rt. denied, 470 U.S. 1052 , 105 S.Ct. 1753 , 84 L.Ed.2d 817 (1985).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Mayfield v. United States
See also, Litchfield v. Spielberg, 736 F.2d 1352, 1357 (9th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1052 , 105 S.Ct. 1753 , 84 L.Ed.2d 817 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Sobhani v. @ RADICAL. MEDIA INC.
Co., 856 F.2d 1341 (9th Cir.1988) (quoting 1 Nimmer on Copyright § 3.01 (1986)); see also Litchfield v. Spielberg, 736 F.2d 1352, 1357 (9th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1052 , 105 S.Ct. 1753 , 84 L.Ed.2d 817 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Arden v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc.
See Durham Indus., Inc. v. Tomy Corp., 630 F.2d 905, 918 (2d Cir.1980) (noting that “the absence of substantial similarity leaves little basis for asserting a likelihood of consumer confusion ...”); Jones, 733 F.Supp. at 754 (stating that substantial similarity is “an essential element of plaintiff’s claim to be the originator” of the allegedly infringing work); Conan Properties, Inc. v. Mattel, Inc., 712 F.Supp. 353, 362 (S.D.N.Y.1989); see also Litchfield v. Spielberg, 736 F.2d 1352, 1358 (9th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1052 , *1264 105 S.Ct. 1753 , 84 L.Ed.2d 817 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Williams v. Crichton
Walker, 784 F.2d at 50 ; Burroughs, 683 F.2d at 624 (“the few purported similarities either are so general as to be meaningless, or are not similarities at ah”); see also Litchfield v. Spielberg, 736 F.2d 1352, 1356 (9th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1052 , 105 S.Ct. 1753 , 84 L.Ed.2d 817 (1985) (such lists of similarities are “inherently subjective and unreliable,” particularly where “the list emphasizes random similarities scattered throughout the works”).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Lou Shaw Eastborne Productions, Inc. v. Richard Lindheim Michael Sloan Universal City Studios, Inc. Columbia Broadcasting Systems McA Television, Ltd.
Whereas Krofft listed “the type of artwork involved, the materials used, the subject matter, and the setting for the subject” as criteria for consideration under the extrinsic test, id., a series of opinions beginning with the district court opinion in Jason v. Fonda, 526 F.Supp. 774 (C.D.Cal.1981), aff'd and incorporated by reference, 698 F.2d 966 (9th Cir.1982), have listed “plot, themes, dialogue, mood, setting, pace, and sequence” *1357 as extrinsic test criteria. 526 F.Supp. at 777 ; see also Litchfield v. Spielberg, 736 F.2d 1352, 1356 (9th Cir.1984) (repeating this list), cert. …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Lou Shaw Eastborne Productions, Inc. v. Richard Lindheim Michael Sloan Universal City Studios, Inc. Columbia Broadcasting Systems McA Television, Ltd.
Cal.1981), aff'd and in-corporated by reference, 698 F.2d 966 (9th Cir.1982), have listed “plot, themes, dialogue, mood, setting, pace, and sequence” as extrinsic test criteria. 526 F.Supp. at 777 ; see also Litchfield v. Spielberg, 736 F.2d 1352, 1356 (9th Cir.1984) (repeating this list), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1052 , 105 S.Ct. 1753 , 84 L.Ed.2d 817 (1985); Berkic v. Crichton, 761 F.2d 1289, 1293 (9th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 826 , 106 S.Ct. 85 , 88 L.Ed.2d 69 (1985); Olson, 855 F.2d at 1450 (same); Narell, 872 F.2d at 912 (adding “characters” to the list and trans *535 fo…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Lowery v. Brand
See General Atomic Co. v. Duke Power Co., 553 F.2d 53 (10th Cir.1977) (supplier of uranium improperly sought to interplead four utility companies alleging adverse claims among them concerning a quantity of uranium not in plaintiffs custody or possession, but to which plaintiff had a claim); see also Indianapolis Colts v. Mayor & City Council, 733 F.2d 484 (7th Cir.1984), ce rt. denied, 470 U.S. 1052 , 105 S.Ct. 1753 , 84 L.Ed.2d 817 (1985) (professional football team could not use interpleader to resolve cities’ conflicting claims to team in part because there was no stake or fund).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Walker v. Time Life Films, Inc.
See also Litchfield v. Spielberg, 736 F.2d 1352, 1356 (9th Cir.1984), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 105 S.Ct. 1753 , 84 L.Ed.2d 817 (1985) (rejection of list method of comparing works for substantial similarity, because it is “inherently subjective and unreliable.”).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Litchfield
v.
Spielberg
v.
Spielberg
No. 84-1149.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 18, 1985.
Published
Citer courts: M.D. Alabama (1)
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.