green
Positive treatment
6.4 score
Treatment trajectory · 1960 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1960
1993
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 18 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Peer International Corp. v. Latin American Music Corp.
See Rose v. Bourne, Inc., 279 F.2d 79 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 880 , 81 S.Ct. 170 , 5 L.Ed.2d 103 (1960); Rossiter v. Vogel, 134 F.2d 908 (2d Cir.1943); Goodman v. Lee, 815 F.2d 1030 , 1031 n. 2 (5th Cir.1987).
discussed
Cited "see"
Latin American Music Co. v. Archdiocese of San Juan of Roman Catholic & Apostolic Church
See Rose v. Bourne, Inc., 279 F.2d 79 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 880 , 81 S.Ct. 170 , 5 L.Ed.2d 103 (1960); Rossiter v. Vogel, 134 F.2d 908 (2d Cir.1943); Goodman v. Lee, 815 F.2d 1030 , 1031 n. 2 (5th Cir.1987).
discussed
Cited "see"
Latin American Music Co. v. Archdiocese of San Juan of the Roman Catholic & Apostolic Church
See Rose v. Bourne, Inc., 279 F.2d 79 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 880 , 81 S.Ct. 170 , 5 L.Ed.2d 103 (1960); Rossiter v. Vogel, 134 F.2d 908 (2d Cir.1943); Goodman v. Lee, 815 F.2d 1030 , 1031 n. 2 (5th Cir.1987).
cited
Cited "see"
Twin Peaks Productions, Inc. v. Publications International, Ltd.
See Rose v. Bourne, Inc., 279 F.2d 79, 81 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 880 , 81 S.Ct. 170 , 5 L.Ed.2d 103 (1960).
cited
Cited "see"
Twin Peaks Productions, Inc. v. Publications International, Ltd.
See Bose v. Bourne, Inc., 279 F.2d 79, 81 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 880 , 81 S.Ct. 170 , 5 L.Ed.2d 103 (1960).
discussed
Cited "see"
Stone v. Williams
See Rose v. Bourne, Inc., 176 F.Supp. 605, 610 (S.D.N.Y.1959) (registration renews a copyright but does not determine ownership of the copyright as renewed), aff'd, 279 F.2d 79 (2d Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 880 , 81 S.Ct. 170 , 5 L.Ed.2d 103 (1960). 26 In order for plaintiff to be entitled to a share of copyright renewals under §§ 24 and 304(a), she need only be a "child" of the author.
discussed
Cited "see"
Stone v. Williams
See Rose v. Bourne, Inc., 176 F.Supp. 605, 610 (S.D.N.Y.1959) (registration renews a copyright but does not determine ownership of the copyright as renewed), aff'd, 279 F.2d 79 (2d Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 880 , 81 S.Ct. 170 , 5 L.Ed.2d 103 (1960).
discussed
Cited "see"
Brent Liquid Transport, Inc. v. GATX Leasing Corp.
(2×)
See Hampton v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 279 F.2d 100, 105 (9th Cir.1960), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 882 , 81 S.Ct. 170 , 5 L.Ed.2d 103 (1960).
discussed
Cited "see"
Cyril Russell, Etc. v. Daniel A. Price, and Albert C. Drebin, Etc., Cyril Russell, Etc. v. Daniel A. Price, and Albert C. Drebin, Cyril Russell, Etc. v. Daniel A. Price, and Albert C. Drebin, Etc.
(2×)
See Hampton v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 279 F.2d 100, 105 (9th Cir.), Cert. denied, 364 U.S. 882 , 81 S.Ct. 170 , 5 L.Ed.2d 103 (1960) 8 ; Universal Pictures Co. v. Harold Lloyd Corp., 162 F.2d 354, 372 (9th Cir. 1947).
discussed
Cited "see"
Russell v. Price
(2×)
See Hampton v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 279 F.2d 100, 105 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 882 , 81 S.Ct. 170 , 5 L.Ed.2d 103 (1960) 8 ; Universal Pictures Co. v. Harold Lloyd Corp., 162 F.2d 354, 372 (9th Cir. 1947).
discussed
Cited "see"
Wainwright Securities Inc. v. Wall Street Transcript Corp.
In copyright cases, attorney’s fees are generally not awarded to a successful defendant except as “a penalty imposed upon the plaintiff for institution of a baseless, frivolous, or unreasonable suit, or one instituted in bad faith.” Breffort v. I Had a Ball Co., 271 F.Supp. 623, 627 (S.D.N.Y.1967) (Mansfield, J.); accord, Gardner v. Nizer, 396 F.Supp. 63, 64 (S.D.N.Y.1975); see Rose v. Bourne, Inc., 176 F.Supp. 605, 612 (S.D.N.Y.1959), aff’d, 279 F.2d 79 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 880 , 81 S.Ct. 170 , 5 L.Ed.2d 103 (1960); 3 M.
examined
Cited "see"
Terry Gilliam, Plaintiffs-Appellants-Appellees v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., Defendant-Appellee-Appellant
(4×)
See Hampton v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 279 F.2d 100 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 882 , 81 S.Ct. 170 , 5 L.Ed.2d 103 (1970); Ilyin v. Avon Publications, 144 F.Supp. 368, 372 (S.D.N.Y.1956).
cited
Cited "see"
Atlantic Discount Company, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross v. United States of America, Defendant-Appellant-Cross
See American State Bank v. United States, 7 Cir., 1960, 279 F.2d 585, 589-590 , cert. denied, 364 U.S. 881 , 81 S.Ct. 170 , 5 L.Ed.2d 103 ; S. W.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Oppenheimer v. Scarafile
(2×)
See, e.g., Id. (citing Hampton v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 279 F.2d 100, 104 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 882 , 81 S. Ct. 170 (1960)).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Carson v. Dynegy, Inc.
(2×)
See, e.g., Hampton v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 279 F.2d 100, 104 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 882 , 81 S.Ct. 170 , 5 L.Ed.2d 103 (1960); Quinn v. City of Detroit, 23 F.Supp.2d 741, 753 (E.D.Mich.1998); National Business Lists, Inc. v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc., 552 F.Supp. 89, 97 (N.D.Ill.1982); Schuchart & Associates, Professional Engineers, Inc. v. Solo Serve Corp., 540 F.Supp. 928, 941 (W.D.Tex.1982); Lottie Joplin Thomas Trust v. Crown Publishers, 456 F.Supp. 531, 535 (S.D.N.Y.1977), aff'd, 592 F.2d 651 (2d Cir.1978).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Love v. Kwitny
(2×)
See also, N. Boorstyn, Copyright Law § 10.25 at 311 (1981) (“To establish the defense of estop-pel, the defendant must show that plaintiff knew of defendant’s infringing acts, expressly or impliedly consented, to such acts through inaction or acquiescence....) The requirements for such an estop-pel, used by the Ninth Circuit in Hampton v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 279 F.2d 100 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 882 , 81 S.Ct. 170 , 5 L.Ed.2d 103 (1960), and adopted by this Circuit in Lottie Joplin Thomas Trust v. Crown Pub., 456 F.Supp. 531 (S.D.N.Y.1977), aff' d, 592 F.2d 651 (2d Cir.197…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
John D. Lawrence, Inc. v. Bank of New Jersey (In re Central Piping Inc.)
(2×)
See also Gold Fuel Service, Inc. v. Esso Standard Oil Co., 59 N.J.Super. 6, 18 , 157 A.2d 30 (1959) (affirmed 32 N.J. 459 , 161 A.2d 246 , cert. denied 364 U.S. 882 , 81 S.Ct. 170 , 5 L.Ed.2d 103 ), wherein the court stated: “ . . it should be noted that merely because certain acts are required or prohibited by a statute, a cause of action does not arise because of violation of the statute.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Henderson v. Foster
When the legislature speaks upon a subject, upon which it has the constitutional power to legislate, public policy is what the statute, passed by it, indicates.” Harding v. American Glucose Co. (1899), 182 Ill. 551, 616 ; Perry v. United States School Furniture Co. (1907), 232 Ill. 101, 109-110 ; see also Heckendorn v. First National Bank of Ottawa (1960), 19 Ill.2d 190 , cert. denied, 364 U.S. 882 , 5 L.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Gold Fuel Service, Inc.
v.
Esso Standard Oil Co.
v.
Esso Standard Oil Co.
No. 361.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Nov 7, 1960.
Sam Weiss and Michael J. Pappas for petitioner. John J. Monigan for respondent.
Published
Supreme Court of New Jersey. Certiorari denied.