156 Cal. App. 2d 435 - Chandler v. Roach’s Empirical Analysis
1957
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently March 2016 · most notably 17 Cal. 4th 38 - Aerojet-General Corp. v. Transport Indemnity Co. (1997), 245 Cal. App. 2d 593 - Donahue v. Ziv Television Programs, Inc. (1966)
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 29 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 46 Cal. 2d 715 - Desny v. Wilder · Weitzenkorn v. Lesser · 35 Cal. 2d 653 - Stanley v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. · Silva v. Providence Hospital of Oakland · Kurlan v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc.
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“‘ ‘‘ Even though the idea disclosed may be 1 ‘ widely known and generally understood” * * *, it may be protected by an express contract providing that it will be paid for regardless of its lack of novelty * * * ’. “ We believe that if a producer obligates himself to pay for the disclosure of an idea, whether it is for protectible or unprotectible material, in return for a disclosure thereof he should be compelled to hold to his promise. There is nothing unreasonable in the assumption that a producer would obligate himself to pay for the disclosure of an idea which he would otherwise be legally free to use, but which in fact, he ivould be unable to use but for the disclosure. * * * “ 1 The test for a property right, applied in common law copyright cases, is that the work be new, novel and in concrete form. * * * “ ‘ Not only is this property right test not a part of any traditional contract action, but there is no reason for applying such a test in this particular type of contract action. The reason for the requirement in common law copyright was that to have a remedy good against the world, a property right must be shown. This reason for the test is missing in an action on a contract.’ ” (Emphasis added.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“In Desny v. Wilder, 46 Cal. 2d 715 , at page 744, 299 P. 2d 257 , at page 273, the court said: "It is not essential to recovery that plaintiff's story or synopsis possess the elements of copyright protectibility if the fact of consensual contract be found. (Weitzenkorn v. Lesser (1953), supra, 40 Cal.2d 778, 791-792 , 256 P.2d 947 .)" And as Justice Traynor said, in the Stanley case, [ Stanley v. Columbia Broad. Sys., Inc., 35 Cal. 2d 653 , 221 P. 2d 73, 90 (1950) ]: "It is not for the court to consider the quality of an idea or to pass judgment on the public's taste; the problem before it is not one of aesthetics but one of property rights." In the present case, it is "contract rights" rather than "property rights" with which we are concerned, but the reasoning applies with equal force.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“It is not essential to recovery that plaintiff's story or synopsis possess the elements of copyright protectibility if the fact of consensual contract be found. (Weitzenkorn v. Lesser (1953), supra, 40 Cal.2d 778, 791-792 , 256 P.2d 947 .)”
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.