Legal Opinion
Hal Roach Studios, Inc., a Delaware Corporation v. Richard Feiner and Company, Inc., a New York Corporation
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided February 22, 1990No. 87-6146PublishedCited by 2,919 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
REINHARDT, Circuit Judge:
This case involves the worldwide television rights to a number of Laurel and Hardy silent films (“the silent subjects”). Appellee’s predecessor in interest, Hal Roach, Inc., and appellant Richard Feiner and Company, Inc. (“Feiner & Co.”) entered into a written agreement to license the television rights to certain of the films to Feiner & Co. for a ten year period with an option to renew the license agreement for a second ten year term. Feiner & Co. subsequently exercised the option.
In 1984 appellee Hal Roach Studios, Inc. (“Hal Roach Studios”) filed a complaint…
2Cases cited54 opinions
- Bender v. Williamsport Area School DistrictSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Browder v. Director, Dept. of Corrections of Ill.Supreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1969
- Richard E. Loux v. B. J. Rhay, WardenCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1967
- Kim King and Kent Norman v. Victor AtiyehCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1987
49 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2,919 opinions
- Michael Henry Ferdik v. Joe Bonzelet, SheriffCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1992
- Robin Orr v. Bank of America, Nt & SaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002
- Jerry L. Branch, Valenna Branch, Colby Branch v. Dale L. Tunnell, Individually and as Special Agent of Bureau of Land Management, State of MontanaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1994
- Evel Knievel Krystal Knievel v. Espn, a Subsidiary of Walt Disney, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2005
- School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation E.J. Bartells Company, a Washington Corporation A.P. Green Refractories Company, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation, and Fibreboard Corp., a Delaware Corporation as Successor in Interest to the Paraffine Companies, Inc., Pabco Products, Inc., Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation, Plant Rubber & Asbestos Works and Plant Rubber & Asbestos Co., School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Keene Corporation, a New York Corporation Individually and as Successor in Interest to the Baldwin Ehret Hill Company, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Us Gypsum Company, a Delaware Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Flintkote Company, a Delaware Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1993
2,914 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.