McDonald v. Hearst
District Court, N.D. California
On Demurrer to Answer.
1Opinion of the Court
DE HAVEN, District Judge.
This is a qui tarn action, brought under section 4965 of the Revised Statutes, to recover the sum of $82,729. The complaint alleges, in substance, that the defendant,, within the period of two years prior to the commencement of the action, without the consent of plaintiff first obtained in writing, and signed in the presence of two or more witnesses, did unlawfully and wrongfully copy, print, and publish at the city and county of San Francisco, in a newspaper known as the Examiner, the material part of a certain copyrighted map of which the plaintiff was then, and is…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co. v. PrenticeSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
- Schreiber v. SharplessSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Stockwell v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1871
- United States v. ChouteauSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
- Cleghorn v. . N.Y. Cen. H. River R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1874
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- M. Witmark & Sons v. CallowayDistrict Court, E.D. Tennessee · 1927
- United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1907
- Commonwealth v. JacksonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1941