Kregos v. Associated Press’s Empirical Analysis
937 F.2d 700 · 1991
Citation profile
42 federal appellate · 8 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 116 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably Lipton v. Nature Co. (1995), Genesee Brewing Company Inc v. Stroh Brewing Company (1997)
42 federal appellate · 8 district ·
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 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (§ 43 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 17 U.S.C. § 102 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976)
Relies on Carnegie v. United States · Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. · Wrenn v. McFadden · Mazer v. Stein · Texas State Commission for the Blind v. United States
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 116 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“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.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“better view.” 13.03[B] at 13-76 to -78. As we noted in Kregos, "[assessing merger in the context of alleged infringement will normally provide a more detailed and realistic basis for evaluating the claim that protection of expression would inevitably accord protection to an idea.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“headings [are] so obvious that their selection cannot be said to satisfy even minimal creativity.... Such a work conveys no information, not just because it contains blanks, but because its selection of headings is totally uninformative. On the other hand, if a scorecard or diary contained a group of headings whose selection (or possibly arrangement) displayed cognizable creativity, the author’s choice of those headings would convey to users the information that this group of categories was something out of the ordinary.”
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.