Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Meredith Corporation, an Iowa Corporation, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc., et al.,defendants-appellees, Brian Sutton-smith, Anindividual, and Prentice-hall, Inc., Adelaware Corporation,additionaldefendantsoncounterclaim-appellants
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. - 500 F.2d 1221
Argued June 26, 1974.Decided July 8, 1974
Marshall C. Berger, New York, City (Hahn, Hessen, Margolis & Ryan, New York City, Molinare, Allegretti, Newitt & Witcoff, Chicago, Ill., William J. Daly, Jr., New York City, George B. Newitt, George P. McAndrews, Chicago, Ill., Wayne Carson, New York City, on the brief), for plaintiff-appellant and additional defendants-appellants.
John C. Lankenau, New York City (Lankenau, Kovner, Bickford & Beer, Victor A. Kovner, Edward A. Miller, Nathaniel J. Bickford, New York City, on the brief), for defendants-appellees.
Before MOORE and FEINBERG, Circuit Judges, and PALMIERI,1 district judge.
PER CURIAM:
The appellants assert error in the grant of a preliminary injunction.
This is essentially a dispute between the publishers of competing textbooks in the child development field. The defendants-appellees, seeking redress as copyright holders, convinced Judge Owen upon a persuasive factual record that they would probably succeed on the merits, that the appellants had plagiarized their textbook, and that there was need for immediate relief. There was a sufficient basis for the findings and conclusions of the District Court and since they are not clearly erroneous, Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a), we affirm.
Of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation