Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 259 FSUPP3D 271 - Tanksley v. Daniels

Tanksley v. Daniels’s Empirical Analysis

2017

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
September 2018
most recently cited

1 federal appellate ·

Relationships

Applies 17 U.S.C. § 102 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 103 (§ 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) · 17 U.S.C. § 501 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976)

Relies on Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Ashcroft v. Iqbal · Phillips v. County of Allegheny · In re Burlington Coat Factory Securities Litigation · Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside

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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “viewing the comparisons in the light most favorable to [Tanksley], ... Cream and Empire contain dramatically different expressions of plot, characters, theme, mood, setting, dialogue, total concept, and overall feel.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “In analyzing the two works for substantial similarity, the court compares aspects such as plot, characters, theme, mood, setting, and dialogue.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “'Futility' means that the complaint, as amended, would fail to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.”
    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.