Harrison v. Maynard, Merrill & Co.’s Empirical Analysis
61 F. 689 · 1894
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 1998 · most notably Bobbs-Merrill Company v. Isidor Straus R H (1908), Bitterman v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad (1907)
16 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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 Stevens v. Gladding · Henry Bill Publishing Co. v. Smythe · Clemens v. Estes · Hudson v. Patten
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.
““It is understood that all paper taken out of the building is to be utilized as paper stock, and all books to be sold as paper stock only, and not placed on the market as anything else.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““But the right to restrain the sale of a particular copy of the book by virtue of the copyright statutes has gone when the owner of the copyright and of that copy has parted with all his title to it, and has conferred an absolute title to the copy upon a purchaser, although with an agreement for a restricted use. The exclusive right to vend the particular copy no longer remains in the owner of the copyright by the copyright statutes. The new purchaser cannot reprint the copy. He cannot print or publish a new edition of the book; but, the copy having been absolutely sold to him, the ordinary incidents of ownership in personal property, among which is the right of alienation, attach to it. If he has agreed that he will not sell it for certain purposes or to certain persons and violates his agreement, and sells to an innocent purchaser, he can be punished for a violation of his agreement; but neither is guilty, under the copyright statutes, of an infringement. If the new purchaser participates in the fraud, he may also share in the punishment. Clemens v. Estes, C.C., 22 Fed. 899 .” (Emphasis supplied.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The owner of a copyright, who lias transferred tlie title to copyrighted books under an agreement restricting tlieir use, cannot restrain, by virtue of the copyright statutes, sales of said books, in violation of the agreement; lie is confined to his remedies for tlie breach of contract.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.