Foley v. Luster’s Empirical Analysis
249 F.3d 1281 · 2001
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 17 U.S.C. § 101 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 106 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 301 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976)
Relies on Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp. · Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc. · Jones v. Rath Packing Co. · Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation & Development Commission · Maryland v. Louisiana
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[w]e employ an “extra element” test such that “if an extra element is required instead of or in addition to the acts of reproduction, performance, distribution or display, in order to constitute a state-created case [sic] of action, then the right does not lie within the general scope of copyright and there is no preemption.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the [Copyright] Act 'preempts only those state law rights that may be abridged by an act which, in and of itself, would infringe one of the exclusive rights provided by federal copyright law.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“state law claim is not preempted if the extra element changes the nature of the action so that it is qualitatively different from a copyright infringement claim.”
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.