Legal Opinion
Consuelo Stephanie Pye and Iris Lee Hammer v. James Mitchell, Arthur Mitchell and Cinema Seven, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided May 3, 1978No. 75-2902PublishedCited by 32 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SNEED, Circuit Judge:
This is an infringement action under the 1909 Copyright Act, Act of March 4,1909, c. 320, § 25, 35 Stat. 1081, as amended prior to the comprehensive revision by Pub.L. No. 94-553, Title I, § 101, Oct. 19,1976, 90 Stat. 2541, effective January 1, 1978. Inasmuch as the cause of action arose prior to January 1, 1978, it is governed by Title 17, U.S.C. “as it existed when the cause of action arose,” section 112, Pub.L. No. 94-553.
Defendants/Appellants James Mitchell, Arthur Mitchell, and Cinema Seven, Inc. were found liable for infringement of Plaintiff/Appellee Consuelo…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Singleton v. WulffSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Hormel v. HelveringSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Universal Pictures Co. v. Harold Lloyd CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1947
- Buck v. Jewell-LaSalle Realty Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1931
- Rothman v. Hospital Service Of Southern CaliforniaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1975
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by32 opinions
- S.O.S., Inc. v. Payday, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1989
- M. Kramer Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. Hugh Andrews, Tim Caldwell, Drew's Distributing, Inc., Drew's Distributing Co., and Lynch Enterprises, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1986
- Frank Music Corp. v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1985
- United States v. Michael Frank MillerCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1987
- Russell v. PriceCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1979
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.