Prather v. Neva Paperbacks, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
446 F.2d 338 · 1971
Citation profile
33 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 70 later decisions — most recently April 2023 · most notably Hobson v. Wilson (1984), Schuler v. United States (1979)
33 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 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.
Relationships
Applies 17 U.S.C. § 115 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976)
Relies on Holmberg v. Armbrecht · Technograph Printed Circuits, Ltd. v. United States · The Japanese War Notes Association of the Philippines, Inc. (Japwancap, Inc.) v. The United States · Arkansas Natural Gas Co. v. Sartor
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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]his doctrine, which is applicable to any cause of action, should not be confused with the doctrine applicable where the gist of the action itself is fraud, and the concealment is inherent in the fraud.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“fraudulent concealment of a cause of action by the defendant will toll the statute of limitations,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]e conclude that the mere fact that plaintiff was unable to procure a copy of the book is insufficient to show the successful concealment necessary to toll the statute of limitations. This was merely ignorance of evidence, not ignorance of a potential claim. The appellant knew of the alleged infringement, but did not have in his possession the precise minutiae of the plagiarism. The bells do not toll the limitations statute while one ferrets the facts. Consequently, the plaintiff did not allege facts which if true would justify tolling the statute of limitations. The district court was therefore correct in granting summary judgment ....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Wolf v. Travolta
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.