Stuart Weitzman, LLC v. Microcomputer Resources, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
542 F.3d 859 · 2008
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 3 district ·
Relationships
Applies 17 U.S.C. § 102 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 106 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 117 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 411 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1338
Relies on Franchise Tax Board of the State of California v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern California · Aetna Life Ins Co of Hartford Conn v. Haworth · King v. St. Vincent's Hospital · Beneficial National Bank v. Anderson · Briarpatch Limited Lp v. Phoenix Pictures Inc
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]n the context of a declaratory judgment action, “the normal position of the parties is reversed; therefore, we do not look to the face of the declaratory judgment complaint in order to determine the presence of a federal question.” Hudson Ins. Co. v. Am. Elec. Corp., 957 F.2d 826 , 828 (11th Cir.1992). “Instead, this court must determine whether or not the cause of action anticipated by the declaratory judgment plaintiff arises under federal law.” Id. Our inquiry is thus “whether, absent the availability of declaratory relief, the instant case could nonetheless have been brought in federal court. To do this, we must analyze the assumed coercive action by the declaratory judgment defendant.” Gulf States Paper Corp. v. Ingram, 811 F.2d 1464 , 1467 (11th Cir.1987), abrogated on other grounds by King v. St. Vincent’s Hosp., 502 U.S. 215 , 217, 112 S.Ct. 570 , 116 L.Ed.2d 578 (1991); see also 22A Am.Jur.2d Declaratory Judgments § 202 (2008). Federal question jurisdiction “exists in a declaratory judgment action if the plaintiff has alleged facts in a well-pleaded complaint which demonstrate that the defendant could file a coercive action arising under federal law.” Household Bank, 320 F.3d at 1251 (emphasis added).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) whether the particular work falls within the type of works protected by the Copyright Act under 17 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 (the subject matter requirement); and (2) whether the claim seeks to vindicate rights that are equivalent to one of the bundle of exclusive rights of a copyright holder protected by 17 U.S.C. § 106 (the general scope requirement). In evaluating the second prong, courts ask whether the state law claim has “extra elements that make it qualitatively different from a copyright infringement claim.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“we do not look to the face of the declaratory judgment complaint in order to determine the presence of a federal question.”
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.