Winter v. Gp Putnam's Sons’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 4 district · 5 state decisions

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

1. “A book containing Shakespeare’s sonnets consists of two parts, the material and the print therein, and the ideas and expression thereof. The first may be a product, but the second is not. The latter, were Shakespeare alive, would be governed by copyright laws; the laws of libel to the extent consistent with the First Amendment; and the laws of misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, and mistake. These doctrines applicable to the second part are aimed at the delicate issues that arise with respect to intangibles such as ideas and expression. Products liability law is geared to the tangible world.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Way v. Boy Scouts of America · 90 F. Supp. 2d 798 - James v. Meow Media, Inc.

2. “A pubHsher may of course assume such a burden [to investigate], but there is nothing inherent in the role of the pubHsher or the surrounding legal doctrines to suggest that such a duty should be imposed on pubHshers. Indeed the cases uniformly refuse to impose such a duty. Were we tempted to create this duty, the gentle tug of the First Amendment and the values embodied therein would remind us of the social costs.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Sinai v. Mitchell Books · 863 F. Supp. 41 - Barden v. HarperCollins Publishers, Inc.

3. “The purposes served by products liability law... are focused on the tangible world and do not take into consideration the unique characteristics of ideas and expression. .. . Although there is always some appeal to the involuntary spreading of costs of injuries in any area, the costs in any comprehensive cost/benefit analysis would be quite different were strict liability concepts applied to words and ideas. We place a high priority on the unfettered exchange of ideas. We accept the risk that words and ideas have wings we cannot clip and which carry them we know not where. The threat of liability without fault (financial responsibility for our words and ideas in the absence of fault or a special undertaking or responsibility) could seriously inhibit those who wish to share thoughts and theories. As a New York court commented, with the specter of strict liability, “[wjould any author wish to be exposed... for writing on a topic which might result in physical injury? e.g. [sic] How to cut trees; How to keep bees?” [Citation omitted]. One might add: “Would anyone undertake to guide by ideas expressed in words either a discrete group, a nation, or humanity in general?””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Birmingham v. Fodor's Travel Publications, Inc.