Haelan Laboratories, Inc. v. Topps Chewing Gum, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
202 F.2d 866 · 1953
Citation profile
51 federal appellate · 5 district · 22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 126 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2018 · most notably Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co. (1977), Factors Etc., Inc. v. Pro Arts, Inc. (1978)
51 federal appellate · 5 district · 22 state decisions — followed in 13 states
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 Wood v. . Duff-Gordon · Hornstein v. Podwitz · Reiner v. North American Newspaper Alliance · Madison Square Garden Corp. v. Universal Pictures Co.
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.
“a man has a right in the publicity value of his photograph.”
27 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““We said above that defendant was not liable for a breach of any of plaintiff’s contracts induced by Russell, and did not become thus liable (for an induced breach) when there was assigned to defendant a contract between Russell and a ballplayer, although Russell, in making that contract, knowingly induced a breach of a contract with plaintiff. But plaintiff, in its capacity as exclusive grantee of a player’s ‘right of publicity,’ has a valid claim against defendant if defendant used that player’s photograph during the term of plaintiff's grant and with knowledge of it. It is no defense to such a claim that defendant is the assignee of a subsequent contract between that player and Russell, purporting to make a grant to Russell or its assignees. For the prior grant to plaintiff renders that subsequent grant invalid during the period of the grant (including an exercised option) to plaintiff, but not thereafter.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Since Players acted as defendant’s agent, defendant is liable for any breach of plaintiff’s contracts thus induced by Players.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.