Davis v. Blige’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 17 U.S.C. § 101 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 204 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Carnegie-Mellon University v. Cohill · Chambers v. TRM Copy Centers 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Chambliss was unable to recall the day, or even the month, in which he executed the written agreement^], despite the fact that [they are] dated June 23, 2004, the day before the Chambliss deposition was taken’’), but nonetheless gave legal effect to the written agreements, see id. at 499 . 7 . Davis did not respond to defendants’ motion for summary judgment on this claim, and does not appeal the resulting dismissal of her Lanham Act § 43(a) claim. 8 . N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349 reads in relevant part as follows:”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Davis v. Blige
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.