Miller v. Universal City Studios, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
650 F.2d 1365 · 1981
Citation profile
127 federal appellate · 9 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 233 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2019 · most notably Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. (1991), Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises (1985)
127 federal appellate · 9 district · 11 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) · 17 U.S.C. § 103 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 504 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976)
Relies on Barrett v. United States · Amperex Electronic Corp. v. New York Racing Assn., Inc. · International News Service v. Associated Press · Royal Netherlands Steamship Co. v. Strachan Shipping Co. · F. W. Woolworth Co. v. Contemporary Arts, 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 233 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“left with a substantial and ineradicable doubt as to whether the jury was properly guided in its deliberations.”
14 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a work formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship,”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“RULE 145. EXCLUSION OF PROPOSED WITNESSES (a) Exclusion: At the request of a party, the Court shall order witnesses excluded so that they cannot hear the testimony of other witnesses and it may make the order on its own motion. This Rule does not authorize exclusion of (1) a party who is a natural person, or (2) an officer or employee of a party which is not a natural person designated as its representative by its attorney, or (3) a person whose presence is shown by a party to be essential to the presentation of his cause. (b) Contempt: Among other measures which the Court may take in the circumstances, it may punish as for a contempt (i) any witness who remains within hearing of the proceedings after such exclusion has been directed, that fact being noted in the record; and (ii) any person (witness, counsel, or party) who willfully violates instructions issued by the Court with respect to such exclusion.”
4 later decisions 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.