Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 383 F.3d 965 - Grosso v. Miramax Film Corp.

Grosso v. Miramax Film Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

383 F.3d 965 · 2004

Citation profile

29
cited by 29 later decisions
January 2024
most recently cited

9 federal appellate · 4 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently January 2024 · most notably Laws v. Sony Music Entertainment, Inc. (2006), Forest Park Pictures v. Universal Television Network, Inc. (2012)

9 federal appellate · 4 district ·

130200420102020decided

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

Applies 17 U.S.C. § 301 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976)

Relies on Fogerty Fantasy Inc · Del Madera Properties v. Rhodes & Gardner, Inc. · 97 Cal. App. 3d 309 - Faris v. Enberg · 245 Cal. App. 2d 593 - Donahue v. Ziv Television Programs, Inc.

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

  1. “To satisfy the “equivalent rights” part of the preemption test ... the ... alleged misappropriation ... must be equivalent to rights within the general scope of copyright as specified by section 106 of the Copyright Act. Section 106 provides a copyright owner with the exclusive rights of reproduction, preparation of derivative works, distribution, and display. To survive preemption, the state cause of action must protect rights which are qualitatively different from the copyright rights. The state claim must have an extra element which changes the nature of the action.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “the circumstances preceding and attending disclosure, together with the conduct of the offeree acting with knowledge of the circumstances, show a promise [to pay] of the type usually referred to as `implied' or `implied in fact.'”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “the idea was submitted by Plaintiff to Defendants with the understanding and expectation, fully and clearly understood by Defendants that Plaintiffs would be reasonably compensated for its use by Defendants.”
    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.