Citation network
Eldred Vs. Ashcroft
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Oct 09, 2002
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 186 (2002) October Term, 2002 Syllabus Eldred Et Al. V. AshcroftSearch
-
The District of Columbia Circuit affirmed. In that court's unanimous view, Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. NationSearch
-
by contemporaries of the Constitution's formation merited almost conclusive weight under Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. SaronySearch
-
U. S. 53 , 57. As early as McClurg v. KingslandSearch
-
that this Court has been similarly deferential to Congress' judgment regarding copyright. E. g., Sony Corp. of America v. UniversalSearch
-
incorrectly relies on Feist Publications, Inc. v. RuralSearch
-
protection is gained, but also for any renewal or extension legislated during that time. Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. StiffelSearch
-
Co., 376 U. S. 225 , 229, and Bonito Boats, Inc. v. ThunderSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Graham v. JohnSearch
-
thereby affords considerable latitude for scholarship and comment, id., at 560, and even for parody, see Campbell v. Acuff-RoseSearch
-
B). Finally, petitioners' reliance on Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCCSearch
-
Circuit affirmed. 239 F.3d 372 (2001). In that court's unanimous view, Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. NationSearch
-
Id., at 377-378. Circuit precedent, Schnapper v. FoleySearch
-
weight. Ibid. (quoting Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. SaronySearch
-
U. S. 53 , 57 (1884)). As early as McClurg v. KingslandSearch
-
similarly deferential to the judgment of Congress in the realm of copyright. Ibid. (citing Sony Corp. of America v. UniversalSearch
-
Congress retained that approach in subsequent statutes. See Stewart v. AbendSearch
-
in the early days, for example, by Chief Justice Marshall and Justice Story sitting as circuit justices. See Evans v. JordanSearch
-
Blanchard v. SpragueSearch
-
see also Evans v. RobinsonSearch
-
of existing patents.8 McClurg v. 7 JUSTICE STEVENS would sweep away these decisions, asserting that Graham v. JohnSearch
-
on Congress' power to enlarge a patent's duration. 8 JUSTICE STEVENS recites words from Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. StiffelSearch
-
approach he presents is plain. Cf. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ala. v. GarrettSearch
-
reviewwith its presumptions favoring constitutionality-is 'a paradigm of judicial restraint.''' (quoting FCC v. BeachSearch
-
see Sony Corp. of America v. UniversalSearch
-
involved in drafting and studying proposed legislation.''' Garcia v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 469 U. S. 70 , 76 (1984) (quoting Zuber v. AllenSearch
-
argument draws on Feist Publications, Inc. v. RuralSearch
-
is generally for Congress, not the courts, to decide how best to pursue the Copyright Clause's objectives. See Stewart v. AbendSearch
-
American Geophysical Union v. TexacoSearch
-
Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. SaronySearch
-
Myers v. UnitedSearch
-
see Mazer v. SteinSearch
-
held unconstitutional in INS v. ChadhaSearch
-
same position as a matter of unbroken practice. See Brief for Respondent 31-32. Neither Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. StiffelSearch
-
Co., 376 U. S. 225 (1964), nor Bonito Boats, Inc. v. ThunderSearch
-
references to a quid pro quo typically appear in the patent context. See, e. g., J. E. M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. PioneerSearch
-
quoting Kewanee Oil Co. v. BicronSearch
-
Pennock v. DialogueSearch
-
Alfred Bell & Co. v. CataldaSearch
-
of the Fourteenth Amendment. See, e. g., City of Boerne v. FloresSearch
-
Harper & Row, 471 U. S., at 560, and even for parody, see Campbell v. Acuff-RoseSearch
-
the case petitioners principally rely upon for their First Amendment argument, Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCCSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial