Legal Opinion

Arnstein v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp.

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided February 16, 1943PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

CAFFEY, District Judge.

Four defendants are named in the complaint. Two (Warren and Gordon) were not served and will, therefore, be disregarded. The other two (Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, hereinafter for convenience called Fox, and Bregman, Voceo and Conn, Inc., hereinafter referred to as Bregman) were served and answered;

The plaintiff has demanded a jury trial. Fox and Bregman separately each moved to strike out or vacate the demand and for an order transferring the action from the jury calendar to the non-jury calendar.

I. The gravaman of the action is alleged copyright…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Bellavance v. Plastic-Craft Novelty Co.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1939
  2. Pathe Exchange, Inc. v. DalkeCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1931
  3. Young v. Loew's, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1942
  4. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Distributing Corp. v. FisherDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1935
  5. Scribner v. StrausU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1904

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Arnstein v. PorterCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1946
  2. Bruckman v. HollzerCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1946
  3. Rowell v. KaplanSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1967
  4. Bardee Corporation v. Arnold Altex Aluminum Co.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1961
  5. Pallant v. SinatraDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1945

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API