McGhan v. Ebersol’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently November 2018 · most notably Murray v. National Broadcasting Co. (1988), United States v. Bonanno Organized Crime Family of La Cosa Nostra (1989)
5 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 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
Relies on Quinn v. Syracuse Model Neighborhood Corp. · Securities & Exchange Commission v. Research Automation Corp. · Perma Research & Development Co. v. Singer Co. · Mallis v. Bankers Trust Co. · Downey v. General Foods 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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]n order to be protectable, adaptations of ideas must: show genuine novelty and invention, and not merely clever or useful adaptation of existing knowledge ... [t]he judicious use of existing means or the mixture of known ingredients in somewhat different proportions — all the variations on a basic theme — partake more of the nature of elaboration and renovation than of innovation.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Furthermore, a plaintiff may not claim that an idea is novel if the idea was already in use in the industry at the time of the plaintiffs submissions or if the defendant herself had already used that idea. See Bram v. Dannon Milk Products, 33 A.D.2d 1010 , 307 N.Y.S.2d 571 (1st Dept.1970); Downey v. General Foods Corp., 31 N.Y.2d 56 , 334 N.Y.S.2d 874 , 286 N.E.2d 257 (Ct.App.1972).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he intent of the parties, express or implied, whether there was joint control and management of the business, whether there was sharing of profits and losses, and whether there was a combination of property, skill or knowledge. Ramirez v. Goldberg, 82 A.D.2d 850 , 439 N.Y.S.2d 959 (2d Dep’t 1981). Finally, a joint venture may be created by an oral agreement.”
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.