Kwan v. Schlein’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 federal appellate · 1 district ·

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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “accrues only once, when 'a reasonably diligent plaintiff would have been put on inquiry as to the existence of a right.'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Wilson v. Dynatone Publ'g Co. · Horror Inc. v. Miller

2. “Here, BRB and Schlein rejected Kwan’s express assertion of authorship in December 1998, and then published the first edition of FIOL, which did not list Kwan as an author, in January 1999. On the facts of this case, there is no question that Kwan was aware of the dispute regarding her rights to FIOL by-January 1999, when the first edition was published, and therefore, her ownership claim accrued at that time. Because Kwan did not file suit until December 2004, more than three years after the publication of the first edition ... any ownership claim relating to FIOL is untimely.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Simmons v. Stanberry

3. “[T]he dispute over [the work] does not involve the nature, extent or scope, of copying, and therefore, ownership forms the backbone of the “infringement” claim at issue here. [w]here, as here, a plaintiffs copyright ownership is not conceded (and, in fact, the defendant holds a prior copyright registration certificate for the disputed work), copyright ownership, and not infringement, is the gravamen of the plaintiffs claim to which the statute of limitations is applied.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Warrick v. Roberts