Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 131 U.S. 123 - Thompson v. Hubbard

Thompson v. Hubbard’s Empirical Analysis

131 U.S. 123 · 1889

Citation profile

126
cited by 126 later decisions
15
cited 15 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
April 2020
most recently cited

40 federal appellate · 23 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 126 later decisions (15 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2020 · most notably Sony Corporation of America v. Universal City Studios Inc (1984), Bobbs-Merrill Company v. Isidor Straus R H (1908)

40 federal appellate · 23 district · 1 state decisions

310188918901900191019201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony · Callaghan v. Myers · Rubber Company v. Goodyear · Brawley v. United States · Henry Wheaton v. Richard Peters

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 126 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““It is not enough that Thompson, while he owned the copyright, gave the required notice in the copies of every edition he published while it was his copyright. The inhibition of the statute extended to and operated upon Hubbard while he owned the copyright, in respect to the copies of every edition which he published, and for his failure he is debarred from maintaining his action. * * * But we are of opinion that the failure of Hubbard to comply with the statute operated to prevent his right of action against Thompson from coming into existence.””
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““It is very clear Hint Hubbard, as tlie proprietor of the copyright, was bound to give the statutory notice in the several copies of every edition published by him, and that he did not do so. The plain declaration of the statute is that no person shall maintain an action for the infringement of his copyright, unless he shall give notice thereof by inserting the prescribed words in the several copies of every edition published. That means every edition which he, as controlling the publication, publishes. His failure to give such notice debars him from maintaining an action for the infringement of his copyright. The word ‘action’ means an action either at law or in equity.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. ““See. 4962. No person, shall maintain an action for the infringement of his-copyright unless he shall give notice thereof by inserting in the several copies, of every edition published, on the title-page or the page immediately following, if it be a book; or if a map, chart, musical composition, print, cut, engraving, photograph, painting, drawing, chromo, statue, statuary, or model or-design intended to be perfected and completed as a work of the fine arts, by inscribing upon some * * * portion” of the face or front thereof, or on the face of “the substance on which the same shall be mounted, the following words, ‘Entered according to act of Congress in the year-■— by A. B.,. in the office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington.’ ””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.