Nash v. CBS, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
899 F.2d 1537 · 1990
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently September 2020 · most notably CCC Information Services, Inc. v. Maclean Hunter Market Reports, Inc. (1994), Reed-Union Corporation v. Turtle Wax Inc (1996)
12 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 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. § 102 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 107 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976)
Relies on Mazer v. Stein · International News Service v. Associated Press · Peter Pan Fabrics, Inc. v. Martin Weiner Corp. · Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corp. · Atari, Inc. v. North American Philips Consumer Electronics 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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Every work uses scraps of thought from thousands of predecessors, far too many to compensate even if the legal system were frictionless, which it isn’t. Because any new work depends on others even if unconsciously, broad protection of intellectual property also creates a distinct possibility that the cost of litigation — old- authors trying to get a “piece of the action” from current successes— will prevent or penalize the production of new works, even though the claims be rebuffed ... Yet to deny authors all reward for the value their labors contribute to the works of others also will lead to inefficiently little writing, just as surely as excessively broad rights will do. The prospect of reward is an important stimulus for thinking and writing, especially for [authors] who are full-time authors.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Ordinary observers, like reas’onable men in torts, are fictitious characters of the law, reminders that-judges must apply objective tests rather than examine their own, perceptions. They do not answer the essential question: at what level of generality? After 200 years of wrestling with copyright questions, it is ¡unlikely that courts will come up with the answer any time soon,-if indeed there is “an” answer, which we doubt.”
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.