Ehat v. Tanner’s Empirical Analysis
780 F.2d 876 · 1985
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 11 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 60 later decisions — most recently July 2020 · most notably Briarpatch Limited Lp v. Phoenix Pictures Inc (2004), Baltimore Orioles, Inc. v. Major League Baseball Players Ass'n (1986)
11 federal appellate · 11 district · 9 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. § 102 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 106 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 301 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976)
Relies on Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises · International News Service v. Associated Press · Compco Corp. v. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc. · Warner Bros Inc Ag Dc v. American Broadcasting Companies Inc J · Durham Industries, Inc. v. Tomy 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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A]ll legal or equitable rights that are equivalent to any of the exclusive rights within the general scope of copyright as specified by section 106 [of the Copyright Act] in works of authorship that are fixed in a tangible medium of expression and come within the subject matter of copyright as specified by sections 102 and 103 ... are governed exclusively by this title.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) the work is within the scope of the 'subject matter of copyright' as specified in 17 U.S.C. Secs. 102 and 103; and (2) the rights granted under state law are equivalent to any exclusive rights within the scope of federal copyright as set out in 17 U.S.C. Sec. 106.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The declaration ... in section 301 is intended to be stated in the clearest and most unequivocal language possible, so as to foreclose any conceivable misinterpretation of its unqualified intention that Congress shall act preemptively.”
2 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.