Lewis Orgel and the Michie Company v. Clark Boardman Co., Ltd., and Alfred D. Jahr’s Empirical Analysis
301 F.2d 119 · 1962
Citation profile
40 federal appellate · 10 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 89 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably 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), Knitwaves, Inc. v. Lollytogs Ltd. (1995)
40 federal appellate · 10 district · 1 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 United States v. General Motors Corp. · Sheldon v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp. · Callaghan v. Myers · Alfred Bell & Co. v. Catalda Fine Arts, Inc. · Belford Clarke Co v. Scribner
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 89 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]here an infringer's profits are not entirely due to the infringement, and the evidence suggests some division which may rationally be used as a springboard it is the duty of the court to make some apportionment.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“has been sparingly used and the amounts awarded modest.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Appropriation of the fruits of another's labor and skill in order to publish a rival work without the expenditure of the time and effort required for independently arrived at results is copyright infringement.”
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.