Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 283 U.S. 202 - Jewell-La Salle Realty Co v. Buck

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

283 U.S. 202 · 1931

Citation profile

152
cited by 152 later decisions
8
cited 8 times by the Supreme Court
March 2009
most recently cited

55 federal appellate · 31 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 152 later decisions (8 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2009 · most notably Fogerty Fantasy Inc (1994), F. W. Woolworth Co. v. Contemporary Arts, Inc. (1952)

55 federal appellate · 31 district ·

34019311940195019601970198019902000decided

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

reviewedthe decision below (from Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on L. A. Westermann Co. v. Dispatch Printing Co. · Buck v. Jewell-La Salle Realty Co · White v. Johnson · Reinecke v. Gardner

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

  1. ““If any person shall infringe the copyright in any work protected under the copyright laws of the United States such person shall be liable: “(a) To an injunction restraining such infringement; “(b) To pay to the copyright proprietor such damages as the copyright proprietor may have suffered due to the infringement, as well as all the profits which the infringer shall have made from such infringement * * * or in lieu of actual damages and profits such damages as to the court shall appear to be just, and in assessing such damages the court may, in its discretion, allow the amounts as hereinafter stated, but [here follow limitations applicable specifically to newspaper reproductions of photographs, and certain motion picture infringements of undramatized or nondramatio work and of copyrighted dramatic or dramatico-musical work], and such damages shall in no other case exceed the sum of $5,000 nor be less than the sum of $250, and shall not be regarded as a penalty. But the foregoing exceptions shall not deprive the copyright proprietor of any other remedy given him under this law, nor shall the limitation as to the amount of recovery apply to infringements occurring after the actual notice to a defendant, either by service of process in a suit or other written notice served upon him. • * * “Fourth. In the case of a dramatic or dramatico-musical or a choral or orchestral composition, $100 for the first and $50 for every subsequent infringing performance; in the case of other mus”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““If any person shall infringe the copyright in any work protected under the copyright laws of the United States such person shall be liable: “(a) Injunction — To an injunction restraining such infringements ; “ (b) Damages and profits; amount; other remedies. To pay to the copyright proprietor such damages as the copyright proprietor may have suffered due to the infringement * * * and such damages shall in no other case exceed the sum of $5,000 nor be less than the sum of $250.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““In a case disclosing infringement of a •copyright covering a musical composition, there being no proof of actual damages, is the court bound by the minimum amount of $250 set out in the so-called ‘no other case’ ■clause of section 25 (b) of the Copyright Act (17 USCA § 25), reading, ‘and such damages shall in no other ease exceed the sum of $5,000 nor be less than the sum of $250, and shall not be regarded as a penalty?’ ” “Is section 25 (b) Fourth of the Copyright Act (17 USCA § 25), applicable in the discretion of the Court, to a ease disclosing infringement of copyright covering a musical composition, there being no proof of actual damage?” “In section 25 (b) of the Copyright Act (17 USCA § 25) is the clause reading, ‘nor shall the limitation as to the amount of recovery apply to infringements occurring after the actual notice to a defendant,’ confined in its scope to the particular cases of infringement theretofore specifically mentioned in said section 25 (b) ?””
    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.