Glazer v. Hoffman’s Empirical Analysis
1943
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently October 2017
6 federal appellate · 6 state decisions
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 International News Service v. Associated Press · Richard Ferris v. Charles Frohman · The Children's Bootery v. Sutker · Fisher v. . Star Co. · El Modello Cigar Manufacturing Co. v. Gato
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Hoffman’s] performance, as reflected by the record, is substantially, viz.: He opens his performance with an address, professionally known as ‘patter’. The address appellee caused to be copyrighted. Subsequent to the ‘patter’ appellee proceeds to produce various cocktails, coffee, sodas and other drinks from pitchers, shakers, etc., and delivers these several drinks to the members of his audiences. These drinks are taken from ‘seemingly’ empty shakers and beakers. The mechanical equipment used and necessary for the sleight of hand performance given from time to time by the appellee is purchasable on the open market. [Glazer’s] act or performance consists of the use of similar mechanical equipment. He likewise attempts to deliver an address or professional ‘patter’ prior to the act or performance. He is able by sleight of hand performance to supply approximately any drink requested by the different members of his audiences. He points out that the act or performance is nothing more than a ‘trick’ or the common property of magicians.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“"* * * Likewise, a person is not permitted to use even his own name with fraudulent intentions of appropriating the good will of a business established and built up by another person of the same name. Losses in a financial manner cannot thusly be inflicted on a rival competitor. See Children's Bootery v. Sutker, 91 Fla. 60 , 107 So. 345 , 44 A.L.R. 698 ; El Modello Cigar Mfg. Co. v. Gato, 25 Fla. 886 , 7 So. 23 , 6 L.R.A. 823 , 23 Am.St.Rep. 537 ."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“sleight of hand performance whereby the thirty odd drinks are produced from ‘seemingly’ empty beakers” did not constitute”
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.