Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 863 F.2d 1061 - Gaste v. Kaiserman

Gaste v. Kaiserman’s Empirical Analysis

863 F.2d 1061 · 1988

Citation profile

132
cited by 132 later decisions
1
states following
November 2024
most recently cited

41 federal appellate · 10 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 132 later decisions — most recently November 2024 · most notably Lipton v. Nature Co. (1995), Frito-Lay, Inc. v. LTV Steel Co. (1993)

41 federal appellate · 10 district · 1 state decisions

66019881990200020102020decided

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. § 410 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 504 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976)

Relies on Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council · Unimet Corp. v. United Steelworkers · Sheldon v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp. · International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders, Blacksmiths, Forgers & Helpers v. Hardeman

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

  1. “[i]f the two works are so strikingly similar as to preclude the possibility of independent creation, 'copying' may be proved without a showing of access.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “We also note that on the issue of originality, as compared to the issue of compliance with statutory formalities, it is even clearer that copyright registration created a presumption of validity.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[i]n establishing the infringer's profits, the copyright owner is required to present proof only of the infringer's gross revenue, and the infringer is required to prove his or her deductible expenses and the elements of profit attributable to factors other than the copyrighted work.”
    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.