Jerome D. Salinger A/K/A J.D. Salinger v. Random House, Inc. & Ian Hamilton, 818 F.2d 252 (2d Cir. 1987). · Go Syfert
Search
Jerome D. Salinger A/K/A J.D. Salinger v. Random House, Inc. & Ian Hamilton, 818 F.2d 252 (2d Cir. 1987). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
32 citation events (13 in the last 25 years) across 9 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Schwetz v. Bd. of Coop. Educ. Servs. of Nassau Cnty. (ca2, 2026-02-20)
Treatment trajectory · 1987 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1987 2006 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 23 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Schwetz v. Bd. of Coop. Educ. Servs. of Nassau Cnty.
2d Cir. · 2026 · confidence medium
See United States v. Aulet, 618 F.2d 182, 187 (2d Cir. 1980); Salinger v. Random House, Inc., 818 F.2d 252, 253 (2d Cir. 1987) (per curiam); Loria v. Gorman, 306 F.3d 1271 , 1280 n.2 (2d Cir. 2002) (“Ordinarily, material not included in the record on appeal will not be considered.”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Link Motion Inc. v. DLA Piper LLP (US)
S.D.N.Y. · 2023 · confidence medium
Rather, the Second Circuit asks whether supplementation would “clarif[y] [its] understanding of the process by which the District Judge reached the decision challenged on appeal.” Salinger v. Random House, Inc., 818 F.2d 252, 253 (2d Cir. 1987) (permitting supplementation where it was “certain that such [documents] were considered” by the district court).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) DeBernardo v. Lowe's Home Ctrs.
2d Cir. · 2023 · confidence medium
For 12 example, record supplements may be appropriate to “clarif[y] [the Court’s] understanding of the 13 process by which the District Judge reached the decision challenged on appeal.” Salinger v. 14 Random House, Inc., 818 F.2d 252, 253 (2d Cir. 1987).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jeanty v. City of Utica
2d Cir. · 2023 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Cf. Salinger v. Random House, Inc., 818 F.2d 252, 253 (2d Cir. 1987) (per curiam) (explaining that a request to supplement the record was warranted where new material “clarifie[d] our understanding of the process by which the District Court reached the decision challenged on appeal”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) SEC v. Govender (Fishoff)
2d Cir. · 2022 · confidence medium
Corp. v. Edelstein, 526 F.2d 37 , 45 (2d Cir. 1975), such as when the new material would “clarif[y] our understanding of the process by which the District Judge reached the decision challenged on appeal,” Salinger v. Random House, Inc., 818 F.2d 252, 253 (2d Cir. 1987).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Perkins
2d Cir. · 2020 · confidence medium
Accordingly, we exercise our discretion to consider this argument as not waived. 2 District Judge reached the decision challenged on appeal.” Salinger v. Random House, Inc., 818 F.2d 252, 253 (2d Cir. 1987).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re: BGI, Inc.
2d Cir. · 2014 · confidence medium
These documents were not submitted to the District Court and, therefore, would not clarify our Court’s “understanding of the process by which the District Judge reached the decision challenged on appeal.” Salinger v. Random House, Inc., 818 F.2d 252, 253 (2d Cir. 1987); cf. Opetubo v. Citibank Student Loan Corp., 74 F. App’x 145, 146 (2d Cir. 2003) (“[T]his Court will not consider the additional evidence [debtor] submitted on appeal because the majority of the documents reflect changes in [debtor’s] financial circumstances after the 19 1 CONCLUSION 2 For the reasons set forth above…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Beeman v. BGI Creditors' Liquidating Trust (In re BGI, Inc.)
2d Cir. · 2014 · confidence medium
These documents were not submitted to the District Court and, therefore, would not clarify our Court’s "understanding of the process by which the District Judge reached the decision challenged on appeal.” Salinger v. Random House, Inc., 818 F.2d 252, 253 (2d Cir.1987); cf. Opetubo v. Citibank Student Loan Corp., 74 Fed.Appx. 145, 146 (2d Cir.2003) ("[T]his Court will not consider the additional evidence [debtor] submitted on appeal because the majority of the documents reflect changes in [debtor’s] financial circumstances after the bankruptcy and district court decisions.”).
cited Cited as authority (rule) NML Capital, Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina
2d Cir. · 2012 · confidence medium
Corp., 357 Fed.Appx. 370, 372-73 (2d Cir.2009); Salinger v. Random House, Inc., 818 F.2d 252, 253 (2d Cir.1987). 5 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Weaver v. Chrysler Corp.
2d Cir. · 2004 · confidence medium
P. 10(e) permits supplementation when it will “clarif[y] our understanding of the process by which the District Judge reached the decision challenged on appeal.” Salinger v. Random, House, Inc., 818 F.2d 252, 253 (2d Cir.1987) (per curiam).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Opetubo v. Citibank Student Loan Corp.
2d Cir. · 2003 · confidence medium
Moreover, several of the exhibits concerning the correct balance due on the loan were not submitted to the bankruptcy or district courts, and therefore, would not clarify this Court’s “understanding of the process by which the District Judge reached the decision challenged on appeal.” See Salinger v. Random House, 818 F.2d 252, 253 (2d Cir.1987) (noting that parties may supplement a record on appeal pursuant to Fed.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Craft v. Kobler (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
S.D.N.Y. · 1987 · confidence medium
See Salinger v. Random, House, Inc., 811 F.2d 90, 97 (2d Cir.1987); 818 F.2d 252, 254 (2d Cir.1987); Donald v. Zack Meyer’s T.V.
discussed Cited "see" First Interstate Bank of Missoula, N.A. v. Federal Leasing, Inc.
1st Cir. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See Salinger v. Random House, 818 F.2d 252, 253 (2d Cir.1987) (allowing supplementation of record on appeal with documents not technically part of district court record where it appeared district court had in fact considered the evidence). 30 Under the terms of the assignment, the money was held in trust by the Bank for Federal Leasing because the money was paid to the Bank by the Navy but was excluded from the assignment.
cited Cited "see" Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. v. Campbell
6th Cir. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See Salinger v. Random House, Inc., 811 F.2d 90, 98 (2d Cir.), reh'g denied, 818 F.2d 252 , cert. denied, 484 U.S. 890 , 108 S.Ct. 213 , 98 L.Ed.2d 177 (1987).
cited Cited "see" Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. v. Campbell
6th Cir. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See Salinger v. Random House, Inc., 811 F.2d 90, 98 (2d Cir.), reh'g denied, 818 F.2d 252 , cert. denied, 484 U.S. 890 , 108 S.Ct. 213 , 98 L.Ed.2d 177 (1987).
discussed Cited "see" Art Rogers, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. Jeff Koons Sonnabend Gallery, Inc., Defendants-Appellants-Cross-Appellees
2d Cir. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See Maxtone-Graham, 803 F.2d at 1263 . “[W]hat is relevant is the amount and substantiality of the copyrighted expression that has been used, not the factual content of the material in the copyrighted works.” Salinger v. Random House, Inc., 811 F.2d 90, 97 (2d Cir.) (emphasis in original), reh’g denied, 818 F.2d 252 , cert. denied, 484 U.S. 890 , 108 S.Ct. 213 , 98 L.Ed.2d 177 (1987).
discussed Cited "see" Brody v. Spang
3rd Cir. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See Salinger v. Random House, Inc., 818 F.2d 252, 253 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 890 , 108 S.Ct. 213 , 98 L.Ed.2d 177 (1987); Dickerson v. Alabama, 667 F.2d 1364, 1367 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 878 , 103 S.Ct. 173 , 74 L.Ed.2d 142 (1982).
discussed Cited "see" Brody v. Spang
3rd Cir. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See Salinger v. Random House, Inc., 818 F.2d 252, 253 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 890 , 108 S.Ct. 213 , 98 L.Ed.2d 177 (1987); Dickerson v. Alabama, 667 F.2d 1364, 1367 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 878 , 103 S.Ct. 173 , 74 L.Ed.2d 142 (1982).
discussed Cited "see" Arica Institute, Inc. v. Palmer (2×)
S.D.N.Y. · 1991 · signal: see · confidence high
See Salinger v. Random House, Inc., 811 F.2d 90, 98 (2d Cir.) (cliche or ordinary word combination), reh’g denied, 818 F.2d 252 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 890 , 108 S.Ct. 213 , 98 L.Ed.2d 177 (1987); Alberto-Culver Co. v. Andrea Dumon, Inc., 466 F.2d 705, 711 (7th Cir.1972) (advertising slogan not copyrightable); Magic Mktg., Inc. v. Mailing Servs. of Pittsburgh, Inc., 634 F.Supp. 769 (W.D.Pa.1986) (envelopes describing contents with phrases such as “PRIORITY MESSAGE” or “GIFT CHECK” not copyrightable).
discussed Cited "see" New Era Publications International, Aps v. Henry Holt, Co.
2d Cir. · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
See Salinger v. Random House, Inc., 811 F.2d 90, 97 (2d Cir.) ("we agree with the District Court that the first fair use factor weighs in [the biographer's] favor, but not that the purpose of his use entitles him to any special consideration"), reh'g denied, 818 F.2d 252 (2d Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 890 , 108 S.Ct. 213 , 98 L.Ed.2d 177 (1987).
discussed Cited "see" New Era Publications International v. Henry Holt, Co.
2d Cir. · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
See Salinger v. Random House, Inc., 811 F.2d 90, 97 (2d Cir.) (“we agree with the District Court that the first fair use factor weighs in [the biographer’s] favor, but not that the purpose of his use entitles him to any special consideration”), reh’g denied, 818 F.2d 252 (2d Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 890 , 108 S.Ct. 213 , 98 L.Ed.2d 177 (1987).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Schreier v. Weight Watchers Northeast Region, Inc.
E.D.N.Y · 1994 · signal: see also · confidence low
Corp. v. Edelstein, 526 F.2d 37 (2d Cir.1975) (absent extraordinary circumstances, federal appellate courts will not consider evidence that is not part of the trial record); Bersch v. Drexel Firestone, Inc., 519 F.2d 974 , 998 n. 55 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1018 , 96 S.Ct. 453 , 46 L.Ed.2d 389 (1975) (papers not called to the attention of the district court at trial are not properly before the appeals court); Republic Gear Co. v. Borg-Warner Corp., 381 F.2d 551 , 557 n. 5 (2d Cir.1967) (an exhibit that was not before the district court judge is not part of the appellate record); Dicto…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Arica Institute, Inc. v. Palmer
S.D.N.Y. · 1991 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Salinger v. Random House, Inc., 811 F.2d 90, 98 (2d Cir.) (copyright protects a “sequence of creative expression” but not an ordinary phrase in isolation), reh’g denied, 818 F.2d 252 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 890 , 108 S.Ct. 213 , 98 L.Ed.2d 177 (1987).
Jerome D. SALINGER A/K/A J.D. Salinger, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
RANDOM HOUSE, INC. and Ian Hamilton, Defendants-Appellees
657, Docket 86-7957.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
May 4, 1987.
818 F.2d 252
Newman, Miner.
Cited by 29 opinions  |  Published
1 passages pin-cited by 2 cases
Pinpoint authority: #25,750 of 633,719
Citer courts: Second Circuit (2)
PER CURIAM:

Following our decision of January 29, 1987, 811 F.2d 90, appellees have petitioned for rehearing and, in support of their petition, have moved to supplement the record on appeal. They wish to include Judge Leval’s marked copy of plaintiff’s trial exhibit that sets forth those passages of Salinger’s letters alleged to be infringed and compares them with the allegedly infringing passages of Hamilton’s biography. Judge Leval color-coded his copy, meticulously marking the passages in five colors to reflect his view as to whether the passage contained an infringing quotation, an infringing paraphrase, a non-infringing quotation (because Salinger was quoting someone else or because the quoted words were a cliche), a non-infringing report of historical facts, or a non-infringing report of ideas. Judge Leval first disclosed his marked copy of the exhibit to the parties at a chambers conference on February 18, 1987, and that day ordered it made a part of the record in the District Court.

However, on March 9, 1987, Judge Leval vacated his February 18 order, expressing doubt as to his jurisdiction to enter the order during the pendency of the appeal from the denial of the preliminary injunction. To eliminate any basis for such doubt, we issued our mandate on April 1 remanding the case to the District Court for the limited purpose of deciding whether to add the Judge’s marked copy of the exhibit to the trial record. By order dated April 23, Judge Leval reinstated his February 18 ruling. Pursuant to our April 1 ruling, the mandate has been recalled following Judge Leval’s ruling, and the issue of supplementing the appellate record is now properly before us.

We have authority to supplement the record on appeal, Fed.R.App.P. 10(e), even at this late stage of the appellate process, see American Chemical Paint Co. v. Dow Chemical Co., 164 F.2d 208, 209 (6th Cir.1947), and have concluded that we should do so in this instance. The marked exhibit clarifies our understanding of the process by which the District Judge reached the decision challenged on appeal.

Having examined the marked exhibit, we can eliminate the uncertainty we previously expressed as to whether Judge Leval had considered those passages of Salinger’s letters that Hamilton’s biography had closely paraphrased. We can now be certain that such passages were considered, a matter we had been willing to assume on our initial consideration of the appeal. See 811 F.2d at 98.

Nevertheless, we see no reason for altering our conclusion that the biography, in its present form, infringes Salinger’s copyright in his letters. Indeed, the marked[*254] exhibit reinforces our conclusion that the District Judge has, in some instances, misapplied the governing standards. Now that we can identify precisely those passages that the District Judge deemed to be infringing and non-infringing, it is evident that some passages containing facts and ideas were not deemed infringing, even though those passages impermissibly took the expressive content of Salinger’s letters by copying the author’s “association, presentation, and combination of the ideas and thought which go to make up [his] literary composition.” Nutt v. National Institute Inc. for the Improvement of Memory, 31 F.2d 236, 237 (2d Cir.1929).

The motion to supplement the record is granted. The petition for rehearing is denied.