26 F. Supp. 41 - Basevi v. Edward O'Toole Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1939
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently May 1996 · most notably Alfred Bell & Co. v. Catalda Fine Arts, Inc. (1951), Heim v. Universal Pictures Co. (1946)
11 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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 Callaghan v. Myers · Richard Ferris v. Charles Frohman · Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. United States · Mifflin v. R. H. White Co. · Thompson v. Hubbard
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The only excuse available to the copyright owner who has failed to mark reproductions of his copyrighted article is stated in Section 20 of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C.A. § 20 , to be when he has through ‘accident’ or ‘mistake’ failed to mark some ‘particular copy’ or ‘copies’ although he has ‘sought to comply’ with the marking requirements of the Act.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““ . . .if the copyright owner elects to give the date of the copyright, the date given must certainly not be later than the actual date.” Basevi v. Edward O’Toole Co., 26 F.Supp. 41, 48 (S.D.N.Y.1939).”
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.