Connolly v. Jt Ventures’s Empirical Analysis
851 F.2d 930 · 1988
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently June 2025 · most notably Jones v. Lincoln Electric Co. (1999), Jardien v. Winston Network, Inc. (1989)
23 federal appellate · 2 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. § 504 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976)
Relies on United States v. United Mine Workers of America · Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co. · Wilson v. United States · Citizens Bank & Trust Co. v. United States · Leman v. Krentler-Arnold Hinge Last 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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“■While the distinction is clear between damages, in the sense of actual pecuniary loss, and profits, the latter may none the less be included in the concept of compensatory relief. In a suit in equity against an infringer, profits are recoverable not by way of punishment but to insure full compensation to the party injured ... Profits are [ ] allowed ‘as an equitable measure of compensation’ ... it is apparent that there is no necessary exclusion of profits from the idea of compensation in a remedial proceeding.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“to coerce obedience to a court order or to compensate the complainant for losses sustained as a result of the contumacy.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“It is well-settled that ‘a command to the corporation is in effect a command to those who are officially responsible for the conduct of its affairs. If they, apprised of the writ directed to the corporation, prevent compliance or fail to take appropriate action within their power for the performance of the corporate duty, they, no less than the corporation itself, are guilty of disobedience, and may be punished for contempt.’”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.