Lare v. Harper’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 6 district ·

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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The complainant was not entitled to a monopoly in the subject of arctic explorations; nor had it an exclusive right to publish and sell books relating to Nansen’s polar expedition. That subject was open to the world. Nor had the complainant an exclusive right, as against the defendants, to the use of the words ‘The “Fram” Expedition. Nansen in the Frozen World,’ or of any of them. There can be little doubt that Nansen’s exploits served to kindle popular interest in arctic explorations. In fact the record discloses that they were the proximate cause of the publication by the defendants of their book. But this circumstance does not in the least militate against good faith or fair dealing on their part. It appears that months before Nansen began to write an account of the expedition the defendants had determined to publish a book on that and kindred subjects. Nor does the appearance or title of the defendants’ book disclose any intent to indulge in unfair competition with the complainant. Certainly the difference between the two books is obvious to any ordinary customer of such works. * * * There is nothing deceptive in the cover, outside title or title page of the defendants’ book. Those titles, taken in conjunction, are fairly descriptive of the subject matter of the volume. They radically differ from the outside title and title page of the complainant’s book. Comparing the two works, we are unable to perceive that any ordinary customer of such books possessing common intelli”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Harper & Bros. v. Lare

2. ““It Is a rule, subject to few exceptions, that a preliminary injunction should not be awarded on ex parte affidavits, unless in a clear case. 0 * if tliere be any substantial doubt as to the right to a preliminary injunction in such a case, it should bo refused.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Kelly-Springfield Tire Co. v. Kelley Tire & Rubber Co.