Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 86 F.3d 320 - Hart Scr v. Dan Chase Taxidermy Supply Company Inc

Hart Scr v. Dan Chase Taxidermy Supply Company Inc’s Empirical Analysis

86 F.3d 320 · 1996

Citation profile

33
cited by 33 later decisions
July 2020
most recently cited

14 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently July 2020 · most notably Yurman Design, Inc. v. PAJ, Inc. (2001), Genesee Brewing Company Inc v. Stroh Brewing Company (1997)

14 federal appellate ·

1501996200020102020decided

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

Relies on Ingraham v. Wright · Durham Industries, Inc. v. Tomy Corp. · Rebecca Reyher and Ruth Gannett v. Children's Television Workshop and Tuesday Publications, Inc. · Kregos v. Associated Press · Carol Barnhart Inc. v. Economy Cover Corp.

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

  1. “[t]he fundamental copyright principle that only the expression of an idea and not the idea itself is protectable has produced a corollary maxim that even expression is not protected in those instances where there is only one or so few ways of expressing an idea that protection of the expression would effectively accord protection to the idea itself.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The function of the fish form is to portray its own appearance, and that fact is enough to bring it within the scope of the Copyright Act.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “undeserving of copyright protection.... [W]e do not believe that the Barnhart torsos can be analogized to the fish in this case. In Barnhart, the headless, armless, backless styrene torsos were little more than glorified coat-racks used to display clothing in stores. The torsos were designed to present the clothing, not their own forms. In taxidermy, by contrast, people look for more than a fish skin; they wish to see a complete”
    1 later decision 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.