Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 233 F.1d 609 - L. A. Westermann Co. v. Dispatch Printing Co.

L. A. Westermann Co. v. Dispatch Printing Co.’s Empirical Analysis

233 F. 609 · 1916

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
December 1944
most recently cited

9 federal appellate · 7 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 1944

9 federal appellate · 7 district ·

701916192019301940decided

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.

Appellate journey

Relationships

Relies on Rector Etc of Holy Trinity Church v. United States · Brady v. Daly · American Security Trust Company v. Commissioners of the District of Columbia · Lydiard-Peterson Co. v. Woodman · Woodman v. Lydiard-Peterson 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““By the clause ‘in lieu of’ it contemplates an election or discretionary choice between actual damages and 'profits on the one side, and, on the other side, an assumed or somewhat arbitrary award of such damages as may be just. Plaintiff claims that the copyright proprietor is entitled to make this election, and to plant his action arbitrarily and absolutely upon one theory or the other; defendant insists that the election or the discretionary choice is to be made by the court upon the trial. The plaintiff here made the election, if he had the power to do so; and on the evidence there can be no doubt that this was not a case for actual damages, as distinguished from those damages which might be fair and just, and that the court, if called upon to act, must make the same election as plaintiff did. Defendant made no profits, so far as the proofs indicated; the plaintiff’s damages rested in the injury to his More-house contract and in the discouragement of and the tendency to destroy his system of business. To make any accurate proof of actual damages was obviously impossible. This case must therefore be treated, from any point of view, as one calling for the application of the ‘in lieu’ portion of the statute. The statute says that ‘such damages shall’ be governed by a maximum and minimum. Whether this phrase, ‘such damages,’ and. the maximum and minimum limitations, apply to the actual damages which may be proved and established under the first part; of tills section, or only ”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Fourth. In the case of a dramatic or dramatico-musical ór a choral or orchestral composition, one hundred dollars for the first and’ fifty dollars for every subsequent infringing performance; in the case, of other musical compositions, ten dollars for every infringing performance.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““It follows that we must decide the questions of fact as well as • * * * of law, * * * save that, under familiar rules, the conclusion of the trial court on questions of fact will not be lightly disturbed.””
    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.