Hampton v. Paramount Pictures Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
279 F.2d 100 · 1960
Citation profile
58 federal appellate · 11 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 131 later decisions — most recently May 2020 · most notably United States v. Georgia-Pacific Co. (1970), Charles Clauson v. Robert D. Smith (1987)
58 federal appellate · 11 district · 10 state decisions
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 National Comics Publications, Inc. v. Fawcett Publications, Inc. · Rex v. Warner · California State Board of Equalization v. Coast Radio Products · Universal Film Mfg. Co. v. Copperman
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 131 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) The party to be estopped must know the facts; (2) he must intend that his conduct shall be acted on or must so act that the party asserting the estoppel has a right to believe it is so intended; (3) the latter must be ignorant of the true facts; and (4) he must rely on the former’s conduct to his injury.”
23 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The doctrine of equitable estoppel does not erase the duty of due care and is not available for the protection of one who has suffered loss solely by reason of his own failure to act or inquire.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[ojnly future use of the films is enjoined. Hence, Paramount's knowledge in years past, prior to asserting a specific claim against Hampton, is immaterial. This action is grounded upon the 1955 infringements alone, and was commenced less than nine months thereafter”); Hayden v. Chalfant Press, Inc., 177 F.Supp. 303 , 307 (S.D.Cal.1959), aff'd, 281 F.2d 543 (9th Cir.1960) (noting, with respect to plaintiff's claim of copyright infringement, that in contrast to estoppel, which”
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.