Cole v. Phillips H. Lord, Inc.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the CourtO'Malley, J.
The principal question to be determined is whether plaintiff, at the close of the entire case, had established prima facie that his conception, a combination of ideas expressed in a concrete formula and which bore the title “ Racketeer & Com*117pany ” (later changed to “ 137 Centre Street ”), was appropriated by the defendant in its own radio production entitled “ Mr. District Attorney.”
Plaintiff alleged four causes of action: (1) An express agreement to pay the reasonable value of his creation; (2) an implied agreement to the same effect; (3) an implied agreement predicated upon custom; and (4)…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Underhill v. . SchenckNew York Court of Appeals · 1924
- Heyman Cohen & Sons, Inc. v. M. Lurie Woolen Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1921
- Bristol v. Equitable Life Assurance SocietyNew York Court of Appeals · 1892
- Healey v. R. H. Macy & Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1937
- Healey v. R.H. MacY Co., Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1938
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- Hwesu S. Murray v. National Broadcasting Company, Inc. And Brandon Tartikoff, DefendantsCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1988
- Weitzenkorn v. LesserCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
- Krisel v. DuranDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1966
- Educational Sales Programs, Inc. v. Dreyfus Corp.New York Supreme Court · 1970
- McGhan v. EbersolDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1985
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.