Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 409 F.3d 12 - Johnson v. Gordon

Johnson v. Gordon’s Empirical Analysis

409 F.3d 12 · 2005

Citation profile

86
cited by 86 later decisions
1
states following
November 2024
most recently cited

22 federal appellate · 48 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 86 later decisions — most recently November 2024 · most notably Nola Spice Designs, L.L.C. v. Haydel Enterprises, Inc. (2015), Federal National Mortgage Ass'n v. Hendricks (2012)

22 federal appellate · 48 district · 1 state decisions

520200520102020decided

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 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (§ 43 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 17 U.S.C. § 102 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 408 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 501 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 28 U.S.C. § 636

Relies on Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. · Mesnick v. General Electric Co. · Medina-Munoz v. Rj Reynolds Tobacco Company · Garside v. Osco Drug, Inc. · Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp.

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

  1. “an ordinary person of reasonable attentiveness would, upon listening to both, conclude that the defendant unlawfully appropriated the plaintiffs protectable expression.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “copying . . . rendered the infringing and copyrighted works 'substantially similar.'”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[s]ummary judgment on this issue is appropriate only when a rational factfinder, correctly applying the pertinent legal standards, would be compelled to conclude that no substantial similarity exists between the copyrighted work and the allegedly infringing work.”
    3 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.