Hoste v. Radio Corp. of Am., 654 F.2d 11 (6th Cir. 1981). · Go Syfert
Search
Hoste v. Radio Corp. of Am., 654 F.2d 11 (6th Cir. 1981). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
50 citation events (28 in the last 25 years) across 22 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Randy Matthew Cordero v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (casd, 2022-12-20)
Treatment trajectory · 1981 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1981 2003 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 18 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Randy Matthew Cordero v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
S.D. Cal. · 2022 · confidence medium
Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 11 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Atl. Specialty Ins. Co. v. Coastal Envtl. Grp., Inc. (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
2d Cir. · 2019 · confidence medium
Co., 654 F.2d 11 1015, 1021 (5th Cir. Unit B Aug. 1981); Fed.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Chirco v. Crosswinds Cmnty Inc
6th Cir. · 2007 · confidence medium
In Hoste v. Radio Corporation of America, 654 F.2d 11, 12 (6th Cir. 1981), for example, even when we reversed a district court ruling that barred recovery for the plaintiff by application of laches within the statute of limitations period, we did not rule that the laches doctrine was always inapplicable in such a situation.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Rocking Chair Enterprises, L.L.C. v. MacErich SCG Ltd. Partnership
W.D. Okla. · 2005 · confidence medium
Ltd., 371 F.3d 883, 890 (6th Cir.2004); Hotaling v. Church of Latter-Day Saints, 118 F.3d 199, 202 (4th Cir.1997); Roley, 19 F.3d at 481 ; Makedwde Publishing Co. v. Johnson, 37 F.3d 180, 182 (5th Cir.1994); Stone v. Williams, 970 F.2d 1043 , 1049-50 (2d Cir.1992), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 906 , 113 S.Ct. 2331 , 124 L.Ed.2d 243 (1993); Hoste v. Radio Corp. of America, 654 F.2d 11, 11-12 (6th Cir. 1981).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Fisher v. United Feature Syndicate, Inc.
D. Colo. · 1999 · confidence medium
Roley v. New World Pictures, Ltd., 19 F.3d 479, 481 (9th Cir.1994); Stone v. Williams, 970 F.2d 1043, 1049-50 (2d Cir.1992), ce rt. denied, 508 U.S. 906 , 113 S.Ct. 2331 , 124 L.Ed.2d 243 (1993); Hoste v. Radio Corp. of America, 654 F.2d 11, 11-12 (6th Cir.1981); see also MAI Basic Four, Inc., v. Basis, Inc., 962 F.2d 978 , 987 n. 9 (10th Cir.1992) (recognizing a division among the Circuits over interpretations of section 507(b)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Iverson v. Grant
D.S.D. · 1996 · confidence medium
The Makedwde court relied on the Ninth, Sixth, and Second Circuits’ interpretations of section 507(b) to conclude that a defendant “is only liable for his acts of infringement committed within three years prior to Plaintiffs’ lawsuit.” Id. (emphasis added) (citing Roley v. New World Pictures, Ltd., 19 F.3d 479, 481-82 (discussing the “prevailing view that the statute bars recovery on any claim for damages that accrued more than three years before commencement of suit.”); Hoste v. Radio Corp. of America, 654 F.2d 11, 11 (6th Cir.1981) (holding that the three-year statute of limitati…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Makedwde Publishing Company, Ron Publishing Company, Ric Records v. Alvin Lee Johnson, Sr., Lyman L. Jones
5th Cir. · 1994 · confidence medium
Jones asserts that the court should reject the continuing tort theory and follow decisions of Hoste v. Radio Corp. of America, 654 F.2d 11, 11 (6th Cir.1981) and Stone v. Williams, 970 F.2d 1043 (2nd Cir.1992), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 113 S.Ct. 2331 , 124 L.Ed.2d 243 (1993).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Makedwde Pub. Co. v. Johnson
5th Cir. · 1994 · confidence medium
Jones asserts that the court should reject the continuing tort theory and follow decisions of Hoste v. Radio Corp. of America, 654 F.2d 11, 11 (6th Cir. 1981) and Stone v. Williams, 970 F.2d 1043 (2nd Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 2331 (1993).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Stone v. Williams
2d Cir. · 1992 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Hoey v. Dexel Systems Corp., 716 F.Supp. 222, 223-24 (E.D.Va.1989); Gaste v. Kaiserman, 669 F.Supp. 583, 584 (S.D.N.Y.1987); Hoste v. Radio Corp. of America, 654 F.2d 11, 11-12 (6th Cir.1981) (per curiam). 20 The same rule that governs infringements of copyrights applies to renewal royalties.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Stone v. Williams
2d Cir. · 1992 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Hoey v. Dexel Systems Corp., 716 F.Supp. 222, 223-24 (E.D.Va. 1989); Gaste v. Kaiserman, 669 F.Supp. 583, 584 (S.D.N.Y.1987); Hoste v. Radio Corp. of America, 654 F.2d 11, 11-12 (6th Cir.1981) (per curiam).
cited Cited "see" Design Basics, LLC v. Chelsea Lumber Co.
E.D. Mich. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hoste v. Radio Corp. of Am., 654 F.2d 11 , 12 (6th Cir.1981) (“[T]here was no evidence of prejudice to [the defendants] by reason of the plaintiffs delay in filing this action.
discussed Cited "see" Williams v. Universal Music Group, Inc.
D.D.C. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hoste v. Radio Corp. of Am., 654 F.2d 11 , 11 (6th Cir. 1981). 9 Although Curington also discusses the ownership to the copyright for the music and lyrics of "Last Night Changed It All," Curington Mem. at 4, Williams claims only the copyright to the sound recording, not the authorship or publishing rights to the song, Williams Aff. ¶ 17. -9- to Bullseye in 1975.
cited Cited "see" Williams v. CURINGTON
D.D.C. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hoste v. Radio Corp. of Am., 654 F.2d 11 , 11 (6th Cir.1981). 9 .
discussed Cited "see" Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Roger Miller Music, Inc., Shannon Miller Turner (2×)
6th Cir. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hoste v. Radio Corp. of Am., 654 F.2d 11 (6th Cir.1981).
cited Cited "see" Broadcast Music Inc v. Roger Miller Music
6th Cir. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hoste v. Radio Corp. of Am., 654 F.2d 11 (6th Cir. 1981).
discussed Cited "see" King Empire, Inc. v. Milan Courtyard Homes, Ltd.
S.D. Tex. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hoste v. Radio Corp. of America, 654 F.2d 11, 11 (6th Cir.1981) (interpreting section 507(b) as barring recovery of any claims for damages which accrued over three years prior to the lawsuit); Stone v. Williams 970 F.2d 1043, 1049-50 (2nd Cir.1992) (stating that “[e]aeh act of infringement is a distinct harm giving rise to an independent claim for relief’ and concluding that recovery is allowed for acts occurring within three years of suit, but disallowed for earlier violations). 3 In Makedwde, assignees of rights in a copyrighted song called “Carnival Time ” sued Jones, the former…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Rouse v. Walter & Associates, L.L.C.
S.D. Iowa · 2007 · signal: see also · confidence medium
“No civil action shall be maintained under the provisions of this title unless it is commenced within three years after the claim accrued.” 17 U.S.C. § 507 (b). • “A cause of action for copyright infringement accrues when one has knowledge of a violation or is chargeable with such knowledge.” Roley v. New World Pictures, Ltd., 19 F.3d 479, 481 (9th Cir.1994) (citing Wood v. Santa Barbara Chamber of Commerce, Inc., 507 F.Supp. 1128, 1135 (D.Nev.1980)); see also Hoste v. Radio Corp. of America, 654 F.2d, 11, 11-12 (6th Cir.1981).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Television Digest, Inc. v. United States Telephone Ass'n (2×)
D.D.C. · 1993 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See e.g., Hoste v. Radio Corp. of America, 654 F.2d 11 (6th Cir.1981) (three year statute of limitations of Copyright Act barred recovery of any claims based on damages accruing more than three years before the complaint was filed.) In Hoste , which involved a summary judgement motion by the defendant based on the defense of laches, the Court found that “the complaint raised material issues of fact as to whether the delay in bringing suit was unreasonable and whether the defendants were prejudiced by the delay.” 654 F.2d at 12 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Catherine Hoste
v.
Radio Corporation of America Record Sales, Inc. Allied Artists Pictures Corporation Hill and Range Songs, Inc. Don Robertson Hal Blair Vernon E. Presley, of the Estate of Elvis Presley, Deceased Gladys Music, Inc.
79-1561.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Jul 7, 1981.
654 F.2d 11
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published

654 F.2d 11

212 U.S.P.Q. 153, 1981 Copr.L.Dec. P 25,275

Catherine HOSTE, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
RADIO CORPORATION OF AMERICA Record Sales, Inc.; Allied
Artists Pictures Corporation; Hill and Range Songs, Inc.;
Don Robertson; Hal Blair; Vernon E. Presley, Executor of the
estate of Elvis Presley, deceased; Gladys Music, Inc.,
Defendants-Appellees.

No. 79-1561.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Argued June 3, 1981.
Decided July 7, 1981.

Catherine Hoste, pro se.

Ernest I. Gifford, John F. Hunt, Van Ophem, Sheridan & Sprinkle, P.C., Birmingham, Mich., for plaintiff-appellant.

Herbert Rollins, Rollins & Rollins, Thomas G. Rollins, Detroit, Mich., for defendants-appellees.

Before LIVELY, MERRITT and KENNEDY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

1

The plaintiff appeals from an order granting summary judgment to all defendants in this case claiming copyright infringement. Plaintiff obtained a copyright of her song "As Long As I Have You" in 1946 and a renewal in 1974 as an unpublished composition. In her pro se complaint filed on March 9, 1978, she stated that she heard Elvis Presley sing a song, "I'm Yours" on September 2, 1965 and that the Presley song was practically identical to hers except for some changes in the lyrics. She also alleged that "I'm Yours" continued to be performed after 1965.

2

The district court held that the Copyright Act provides a three year statute of limitations which bars recovery of any claims of plaintiff for damages which accrued prior to March 9, 1975. 17 U.S.C. § 507(b). We agree and affirm the judgment to that extent.

3

The district court further held that recovery of damages for the period subsequent to March 9, 1975 is barred by laches. The defendants filed no affidavits in support of their motion for summary judgment. Thus there was no evidence of prejudice to them by reason of the plaintiff's delay in filing this action. A showing of prejudice is a requirement for application of the doctrine of laches. The district court apparently determined that prejudice to the defendants could be presumed from the inordinate delay in bringing this action.

4

We conclude that summary judgment was inappropriate. The complaint raised material issues of fact as to whether the delay in bringing suit was unreasonable and whether the defendants were prejudiced by the delay. Any presumption of injury to the defendants would merely shift the burden to the plaintiff to show absence of prejudice; it would not be a proper basis for summary judgment. See Watkins v. Northwestern Ohio Tractor Pullers, 630 F.2d 1155 (6th Cir. 1980).

5

The plaintiff is now represented by counsel, and the issues should be developed without difficulty on remand.

6

The judgment of the district court is reversed insofar as it granted summary judgment on the laches issue. The cause is remanded for further proceedings.