Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 283 U.S. 191 - Buck v. Jewell-La Salle Realty Co

Buck v. Jewell-La Salle Realty Co’s Empirical Analysis

283 U.S. 191 · 1931

Citation profile

258
cited by 258 later decisions
11
cited 11 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
July 2015
most recently cited

70 federal appellate · 46 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 258 later decisions (11 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2015 · most notably Sony Corporation of America v. Universal City Studios Inc (1984), TWENTIETH CENTURY MUSIC CORP. Et Al. v. AIKEN (1975)

70 federal appellate · 46 district · 4 state decisions

510193119401950196019701980199020002010decided

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

reviewedPoulos v. United States (from Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Bobbs-Merrill Company v. Isidor Straus R H · Victor Herbert v. Shanley Company No 427 John Church Company · Kalem Co. v. Harper Bros. · Jewell-La Salle Realty Co v. Buck

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

  1. ““Any person entitled thereto, upon complying with the provisions of this title, shall have the exclusive right: * * * “(e) To perform the copyrighted work publicly for profit if it be a musical composition and for the purpose of public-performance for profit.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““But nothing in the act circumscribes the meaning to be attributed to the term ‘performance,’ or prevents a single rendition of a copyrighted selection from resulting in more than one public performance for profit. While this may not have been possible before the development of radio broadcasting, the novelty of the means used does not lessen the duty of the courts to give full protection to the monopoly of public performance for profit which Congress has secured to the composer. * * * No reason is suggested why there may not be more than one liability.” 283 U.S. at 198 , 51 S.Ct. at 411 .”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““Do the acts of a hotel proprietor, in making available to his guests, through the instrumentality of a radio receiving set and loud speakers installed in his hotel and under his control and for the entertainment of his guests, the hearing of a copyrighted musical composition, which has been broadcast from a radio transmitting station, constitute a performance of such composition within the meaning of 17 U.S.C. § 1 (e) [ 17 U.S.C.A. § 1 (e)]?” Buck v. Jewell-La Salle Realty Co., 1931, 283 U.S. 191 , 51 S.Ct. 410 , 75 L.Ed. 971 .”
    2 later decisions 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.