Salinger v. Random House, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
811 F.2d 90 · 1987
Citation profile
54 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 114 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably Castle Rock Entertainment, Inc. v. Carol Publishing Group, Inc. (1998), Twin Peaks Productions, Inc. v. Publications International, Ltd. (1993)
54 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 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. § 106 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 107 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 301 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976)
Relies on Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc. · Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises · Castor v. United States · Ingraham v. Wright · Royal Netherlands Steamship Co. v. Strachan Shipping Co.
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 114 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'comfortably within' the[ ] statutory categories 'of uses illustrative of uses that can be fair.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Copyright] protection is available for the “association, presentation, and combination of the ideas and thought which go to make up the [author’s] literary composition.” Or as we have recently stated, “What is protected is the manner of expression, the author’s analysis or interpretation of events, the way he structures his material and marshals his facts, his choice of words and the emphasis he gives to particular developments.” The “ordinary” phrase may enjoy no protection as such, but its use in a sequence of expressive words does not cause the entire passage to lose protection. And though the “ordinary” phrase may be quoted without fear of infringement, a copier may not quote or paraphrase the sequence of creative expression that includes such a phrase.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'[t]hat would make a pedestrian sentence I didn't wish to put my name to.' " Id. Judge Newman, writing for the Salinger panel, concluded: "[W]hen dealing with copyrighted expression, a biographer (or any other copier) may frequently have to content himself with reporting only the fact of what his subject did, even if he thereby pens a 'pedestrian' sentence. The copier is not at liberty to avoid 'pedestrian' reportage by appropriating his subject's literary devices.”
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.