Smith v. Jackson’s Empirical Analysis
84 F.3d 1213 · 1996
Citation profile
46 federal appellate · 32 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 180 later decisions — most recently March 2020 · most notably Gilligan v. Jamco Development Corp. (1997), Three Boys Music Corp. v. Bolton (2000)
46 federal appellate · 32 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. § 505 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act)
Relies on Fogerty Fantasy Inc · Marino v. Ortiz · Bryson Properties, XVIII v. Travelers Insurance Co. · Marino v. Ortiz · Floyd v. Laws
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 180 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Absent direct evidence of copying, proof of infringement involves fact-based showings that the defendant had 'access' to the plaintiff's work and that the two works are 'substantially similar.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Williams v. Gaye · Williams v. Gaye“a definite and firm conviction that the court below committed a clear error of judgment in the conclusion it reached upon a weighing of the relevant factors.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Although summary judgment is not highly favored on questions of substantial similarity in copyright cases, summary judgment is appropriate if the court can conclude, after viewing the evidence and drawing inferences in a manner most favorable to the non-moving party, that no reasonable juror could find substantial similarity of ideas and expression.... Where reasonable minds could differ on the issue of substantial similarity, however, summary judgment is improper.”
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.