Dezendorf v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp.

Ninth Circuit

Dezendorf v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp.

118 F.2d 561, 49 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 133, 1941 U.S. App. LEXIS 4053

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 20, 1941

DocketNo. 9589

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 118 F.2d 561 (Dezendorf v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dezendorf v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 118 F.2d 561, 49 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 133, 1941 U.S. App. LEXIS 4053 (9th Cir. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

MATHEWS, Circuit Judge.

Appellant sued appellee for alleged infringement of appellant’s right of property in an unpublished play of which she claimed to be the author. Appellee moved to dismiss the bill of complaint for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The District Court granted the motion and, on February 7, 1938, entered a decree dismissing the bill. We reversed the decree and remanded the case for further proceedings. 99 F.2d 850. Thereafter the case was tried and, finding no infringement, the District Court, on February 15, 1940, entered judgment for appellee. 32 F.Supp. 359. This appeal is from that judgment.

Appellant contends that “in reversing the District Court on the first appeal, this court once and for all times settled the issue of infringement in appellant’s favor.” Appellant is mistaken. The issue of infringement was not before us and was not decided on the first appeal. It was before the District Court at the trial of the case and was prop-1 erly decided.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MATHEWS, Circuit Judge.

Appellant sued appellee for alleged infringement of appellant’s right of property in an unpublished play of which she claimed to be the author. Appellee moved to dismiss the bill of complaint for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The District Court granted the motion and, on February 7, 1938, entered a decree dismissing the bill. We reversed the decree and remanded the case for further proceedings. 99 F.2d 850. Thereafter the case was tried and, finding no infringement, the District Court, on February 15, 1940, entered judgment for appellee. 32 F.Supp. 359. This appeal is from that judgment.

Appellant contends that “in reversing the District Court on the first appeal, this court once and for all times settled the issue of infringement in appellant’s favor.” Appellant is mistaken. The issue of infringement was not before us and was not decided on the first appeal. It was before the District Court at the trial of the case and was prop-1 erly decided.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

118 F.2d 561, 49 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 133, 1941 U.S. App. LEXIS 4053, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dezendorf-v-twentieth-century-fox-film-corp-ca9-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack