Donald Frederick Evans & Associates, Inc. v. Continental Homes, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
785 F.2d 897 · 1986
Citation profile
40 federal appellate · 8 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 138 later decisions — most recently April 2020 · most notably Cable/Home Communication Corp. v. Network Productions, Inc. (1990), Ford Motor Co. v. Summit Motor Products, Inc. (1991)
40 federal appellate · 8 district · 2 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. § 106 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 113 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 202 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 301 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 401 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 404 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976)
Relies on United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Bonner v. City of Prichard · Cort v. Ash · Touche Ross & Co. v. Redington · The Boeing Company v. Daniel C. Shipman
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 138 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) On and after January 1, 1978, all legal or equitable rights that are equivalent to any of the exclusive rights within the general scope of copyright as specified by section 106 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of copyright as specified by sections 102 and 103, whether created before or after that date and whether published or unpublished, are governed exclusively by this title. Thereafter, no person is entitled to any such right or equivalent right in any such work under the common law or statutes of any State. (b) Nothing in this title annuls or limits any rights or remedies under the common law or statutes of any State with respect to— (1)subject matter that does not come within the subject matter of copyright as specified by sections 102 and 103, including works of authorship not fixed in any tangible medium of expression; or ... (3) activities violating legal or equitable rights that are not equivalent to any of the exclusive rights within the general scope of copyrights as specified by section 106.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the omission of [a copyright notice] from copies or phonorecords ... does not invalidate the copyright in a work if ... (2) registration for the work has been made before or is made within five years after the publication without notice, and a reasonable effort is made to add notice to all copies or phonorecords that are distributed to the public in the United States after the omission has been discovered....”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the notice has been omitted from no more than a relatively small number of copies ... distributed to the public.”
3 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.