Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 441 F.2d 579 - Runge v. Lee

Runge v. Lee’s Empirical Analysis

441 F.2d 579 · 1971

Citation profile

37
cited by 37 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
August 2015
most recently cited

28 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 37 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2015 · 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), Transgo, Inc. v. Ajac Transmission Parts Corp. (1985)

28 federal appellate ·

15019711980199020002010decided

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. § 101 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 116 · 28 U.S.C. § 1338 · 35 U.S.C. § 285

Relies on Universal Pictures Co. v. Harold Lloyd Corp. · Goodis v. United Artists Television, Inc. · 178 Cal. App. 2d 292 - Ojala v. Bohlin · Sunset House Distributing Corp. v. Doran

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

  1. ““The standard of ‘novelty’ urged by appellants is applicable to patents, but not copyrights. The copyright standard is one of ‘originality’: “ ‘The requirements for the “originality” necessary to support a copyright are modest. The author must have created the work by his own skill, labor and judgment, contributing something “recognizably his own” to prior treatments of the same subject. However, neither great novelty nor superior artistic quality is required.’ ” Quoting Doran v. Sunset House Dist. Corp., 197 F. Supp. 940, 944 (SD Cal. 1961), aff’d, 304 F. 2d 251 (CA9 1962).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “sufficient evidence before the jury on a particular issue, and if the instructions of law on the issue were correct, then the jury's verdict must stand.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Credible testimony by the owner of literary property regarding its value can provide an adequate evidentiary basis for an award of damages.”
    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.