Dimmie v. Carey’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 17 U.S.C. § 101 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 401 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 410 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976)
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · First Nat. Bank of Ariz. v. Cities Service Co. · Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. · Cities of Charlottesville v. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Columbia Gas Transmission 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Bevan is (arguably) out-dated; more recent cases have come to a different conclusion in similar circumstances.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“is sufficient as a matter of law to preclude a finding of non-access, see Bevan, 329 F.Supp. at 609 610-the court rejects such reasoning. [ Id. at 1357-1358 (footnote omitted).] Similarly, Dimmie v. Carey, supra ( 88 F.Supp. 2d at 147 ), stated that”
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.