Banks Law Pub. Co. v. Lawyers' Co-operative Pub. Co.
169 F. 386, 94 C.C.A. 642, 1909 U.S. App. LEXIS 4588
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·Decided March 16, 1909·No. No. 183·Published·Cited by 9 cases
Opinion
It is not necessary to discuss so much of the opinion below as deals with the questions of assignment and of the right of the official reporter to secure copyrights. We concur with Judge Hazel in his reasoning and conclusion that the arrangement of reported cases in sequence, their paging and distribution into volumes, are not features of such importance as to entitle the reporter to copyright protection of such details.
The decree is affirmed, with costs.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Banks Law Pub. Co. v. Lawyers' Co-operative Pub. Co., 169 F. 386, 94 C.C.A. 642, 1909 U.S. App. LEXIS 4588 (2d Cir. 1909).
169 F. 386 (Banks Law Pub. Co. v. Lawyers' Co-operative Pub. Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Matthew Bender & Company, Inc., Hyperlaw, Inc., Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellee v. West Publishing Co. West Publishing Corporation
158 F.3d 693 (Second Circuit, 1998)
West Publishing Company v. Mead Data Central, Inc.
799 F.2d 1219 (Eighth Circuit, 1986)
West Publishing Co. v. Mead Data Central, Inc.
616 F. Supp. 1571 (D. Minnesota, 1985)
Fred Fisher, Inc. v. Dillingham
298 F. 145 (S.D. New York, 1924)
Eggers v. Sun Sales Corp.
263 F. 373 (Second Circuit, 1920)
Park & Pollard Co. v. Kellerstrass
181 F. 431 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Missouri, 1910)