Legal Opinion
O'Reilly v. Curtis Pub. Co.
District Court, D. Massachusetts
Decided March 2, 1938No. 7022PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
McLELLAN, District Judge.
The plaintiff moves that pages numbered 2 and 3 of the defendant’s answer to the plaintiff’s amended declaration be stricken out. These pages read:
“And further answering, the defendant says that if it ever published -or disseminated the written matter annexed to plaintiff’s amended declaration as ‘B,’ 'which includes excerpts annexed as ‘A,’ said written matter in fact constituted an instalment of a work of fiction and that no reference to the plaintiff was made or was intended to be made by the author or by anyone else and that the character O’Reilly was a purely…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Swift v. TysonSupreme Court of the United States · 1842
- Mutual Life Ins. Co. of NY v. JohnsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
- Hanson v. Globe Newspaper Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1893
- Chaves v. WeeksMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1922
- Washington Post Co. v. KennedyCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1925
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Tivoli Realty, Inc. v. Paramount Pictures, Inc.District Court, D. Delaware · 1948
- Tartak v. Tribunal de Distrito de Puerto RicoSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1953
- Smith v. Piper Aircraft Corp.District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1955
- Budget Dress Corp. v. International Ladies' Garment Workers' UnionDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1959
- Evans v. HerbransonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1950
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.