Mitchell v. Capitol Records, LLC’s Empirical Analysis
2017
Citation profile
2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 17 U.S.C. § 102 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 201 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 402 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 410 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 507 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976)
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · 134 S. Ct. 1962 - Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. · Roger Miller Music, Inc. v. Sony/ATV Publishing, LLC
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.
“Petrella does not require the Court to ignore Sixth Circuit precedent that clearly defines accrual of a copyright claim as occurring when the plaintiff "knew of the potential violation or is chargeable with such knowledge." Roger Miller , 477 F.3d at 390 . In Petrella , the Court's statement equating accrual with the occurrence of the infringing act is accompanied by a footnote, which reads as follows: Although we have not passed on the question, nine Courts of Appeals have adopted, as an alternative to the incident of injury rule, a "discovery rule," which starts the limitations period when "the plaintiff discovers, or with due diligence should have discovered, the injury that forms the basis for the claim." William A. Graham Co. v. Haughey , 568 F.3d 425 , 433 (3d Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted)[.] Petrella , 134 S.Ct. at 1969 n. 4. Thus, the Court acknowledged that the "incident of injury" rule it described in the main text of the case is not the only rule that federal courts apply in copyright infringement cases. Since Petrella , the courts interpreting this footnote have largely decided that the discovery rule remains viable in the circuits that had previously applied it. E.g., Wolf v. Travolta , 167 F.Supp.3d 1077 , 1092-93 (C.D. Cal. 2016) (applying discovery rule post- Petrella as Ninth Circuit precedent remained valid); Design Basics LLC v. J & V Roberts Inv., Inc. , 130 F.Supp.3d 1266 , 1281-82 (E.D. Wis. 2015) (same in Seventh Circuit); Lefkowitz v. M”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[n]o civil action shall be maintained under the provisions of this title unless it is commenced within three years after the claim accrued.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“accrues when a plaintiff knows of the potential violation or is chargeable with such knowledge.”
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.