Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 294 U.S. 207 - Douglas v. Cunningham

Douglas v. Cunningham’s Empirical Analysis

294 U.S. 207 · 1935

Citation profile

242
cited by 242 later decisions
4
cited 4 times by the Supreme Court
April 2025
most recently cited

103 federal appellate · 41 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 242 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2025 · most notably F. W. Woolworth Co. v. Contemporary Arts, Inc. (1952), Sid & Marty Krofft Television Productions, Inc. And Sid & Marty Krofft Productions, Inc. v. McDonald Corporation and Needham, Harper & Steers, Inc., Defendants- Sid & Marty Krofft Television Productions, Inc. And Sid & Marty Krofft Productions, Inc. v. McDonald Corporation and Needham, Harper & Steers, Inc., Defendants (1977)

103 federal appellate · 41 district ·

3501935194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 First Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on L. A. Westermann Co. v. Dispatch Printing Co. · Jewell-La Salle Realty Co v. Buck · Great Northern Railway Co. v. Sullivan · Douglas v. Cunningham

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

  1. “[T]he employment of the statutory yardstick, within set limits, is committed solely to the court which hears the case, and this fact takes the matter out of the ordinary rule with respect to abuse of discretion.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The phraseology of the [statutory damages] section was adopted to avoid the strictness of construction incident to a law imposing penalties, and to give the owner of a copyright some recompense for injury done him, in a case where the rules of law render difficult or impossible proof of damages or discovery of profits.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““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, * * * 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. * * * ””
    4 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.