Washingtonian Publishing Co. v. Pearson’s Empirical Analysis
306 U.S. 30 · 1939
Citation profile
104 federal appellate · 21 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 213 later decisions (7 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2018 · most notably Williams v. State of North Carolina (1942), Mazer v. Stein (1954)
104 federal appellate · 21 district · 6 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on International News Service v. Associated Press · Kepner v. United States · Callaghan v. Myers · Bobbs-Merrill Company v. Isidor Straus R H · Henry Wheaton v. Richard Peters
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 213 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“literary works of lasting benefit to the world.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Sections 59 and 60 (requiring prompt deposit) were new legislation. They show clearly enough that deposit of copies is not required primarily in order to insure a complete, permanent collection of all the copyrighted works open to the public. Deposited copies may be distributed or destroyed under the direction of the librarian and this is incompatible with the notion that copies are now required in order that the subject matter of protected works may always be available for information and to prevent unconscious infringement.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“‘‘Petitioner’s claim of copyright came to fruition immediately upon publication. Without further notice it was good against all the world. Its value depended upon the possibility of enforcement. “The use of the word ‘until’ in section 12 rather than ‘unless’ indicates that mere delay in making deposit of copies was not enough to cause forfeiture of the right theretofore distinctly granted.” Washingtonian Publishing Co. v. Pearson, 1939, 306 U.S. 30, 39 , 59 S.Ct. 397, 402 , 83 L.Ed. 470 . (Emphasis added.)”
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.