Gee v. CBS, INC.’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 5 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 75 later decisions — most recently May 2017 · most notably Armstrong v. McAlpin (1983), Bohus v. Beloff (1991)
10 federal appellate · 5 district · 9 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. § 101 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 102 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co. · Foman v. Davis · International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States · Franks v. Bowman Transportation Co.
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 75 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“of the events or circumstances constituting the underlying cause of action, irrespective of whether those underlying events are inherently fraudulent or not. 25 Gee, 471 F.Supp. at 623. 26 This court has adopted the reasoning of Gee, recognizing that”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"Open" and "notorious" means such possession as will permit the true owner to have notice in order that "he may act to recover his property and protect his title from an adverse possessor". . . . There must be actual possession of the property, and not merely the assertion of possession without possession in fact .... But along with possession in fact is the concomitant requirement that the adverse possessor claim he is legally entitled to ownership. In other words, there must be "nothing more or less than the existence of actual possession evidenced by acts of legal ownerships". (Emphasis Provided).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Fleming v. Frett“. . . . There must be actual possession of the property, and not merely the assertion of possession without possession in fact .... But along with possession in fact is the concomitant requirement that the adverse possessor claim he is legally entitled to ownership. In other words, there must be”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Fleming v. Frett
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.