Marvin E. Frankel

In Alexander v. Haley, plaintiff Margaret Walker Alexander sued author Alex Haley and his publisher Doubleday for copyright infringement and unfair competition, alleging that Haley's book Roots copied from her novel Jubilee (1966) and pamphlet How I Wrote Jubilee (1972). Both works blend historical facts about slavery with fiction and draw on the authors' family histories, but Roots spans a broader timeline including pre-U.S. African settings. After an evidentiary hearing, the court found access to Jubilee but not the pamphlet; however, it granted defendants' motions for summary judgment, holding that any similarities involved unprotectable ideas, historical facts, common phrases, or general themes rather than original expression. The decision rested on the principle that copyright protects only specific expressive elements, not facts or ideas, with extensive comparison showing no actionable substantial similarity.

propertyprocedure

This case was a patent infringement suit filed by Janex Corporation against Bradley Time and other defendants over U.S. Patent No. 3,835,640, which covered a children's character alarm clock that played a spoken wake-up message. Defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground that the patent was invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Applying the factual inquiries set out in Graham v. John Deere Co., the court compared the patent claims to fourteen prior-art references, including the 1922 Pinto phonographic alarm clock patent, and determined that the differences were obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. The court therefore granted summary judgment, holding the patent void.

business & regulatory

Berkey Photo sued Eastman Kodak alleging antitrust violations through monopolization and attempts to monopolize markets for amateur cameras and related products. Kodak moved for judgment notwithstanding the jury's verdicts after a trial that awarded Berkey over $37 million in damages, primarily tied to the surprise introduction of the 110 camera system that exploited Kodak's film monopoly. The court granted Kodak's motion in part and denied it in part, reducing the total award to approximately $27 million while upholding liability findings on the 110 camera claims. The reasoning centered on the principle that product introductions are not immune from antitrust scrutiny when deliberately designed to leverage monopoly power in one market to suddenly dominate another, as evidenced by Kodak's strategy of withholding predisclosure from competitors.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved Xedit Corporation, a New York company, suing Harvel Industries and its division Fidelipac, along with an executive, all based in New Jersey and Illinois, for misappropriating trade secrets related to a flutter meter after initial business discussions. The defendants sought to dismiss the suit, arguing the New York court lacked personal jurisdiction over them. The court examined whether the defendants had transacted business in New York under CPLR § 302(a)(1) and if the claim arose from that activity, noting a single trade show meeting in New York where the parties met but the secrets were shared later in New Jersey. Although the meeting qualified as transacting business, the court determined the misappropriation claim did not sufficiently arise from it due to the time, location, and nature of the subsequent events. Therefore, the court granted the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

proceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

This case involved a company's lawsuit seeking a refund of federal withholding and Social Security taxes it paid after discovering its accountant had embezzled the funds and failed to file returns from 1965 to 1972; the government counterclaimed for additional unpaid taxes from those years. The plaintiff argued that equitable defenses such as laches, estoppel, and negligence should bar collection because the IRS did not detect the nonpayment earlier and allegedly made oral assurances under an installment agreement. The court granted the government's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the refund claim and awarding judgment on the counterclaim. It reasoned that tax refund actions are governed by statute rather than general equitable principles, that 26 U.S.C. § 6501(c)(3) permits assessments at any time when no return is filed, and that estoppel cannot bind the United States in this context, especially where reliance was unreasonable and no legal duty existed for the IRS to detect the delinquency.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

In United States v. King, defendants King and Boucher were convicted by a jury of multiple counts of fraud causing millions in investor losses and sentenced to prison terms of one year and seven months respectively, followed by probation. After his sentencing but before reporting to prison, King suffered a stroke causing lasting impairments and moved under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35 to reduce his sentence to probation or to designate a prison facility equipped for his medical needs; Boucher filed a similar motion. The court denied both motions, reasoning that while King's condition warranted consideration, the sentences were not excessive, prison officials could adequately address medical requirements, and executive-branch remedies like furloughs remained available if needed. King's surrender was scheduled at a specific medical facility, but the original sentences were to be served.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a former Delta Air Lines employee who was terminated for violating the company's "no-show" policy and alleged racial discrimination in the denial of probation and a pre-termination hearing that white employees allegedly received. The plaintiff filed a charge with the EEOC more than 300 days after the termination, exceeding the statutory deadline under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The court dismissed the Title VII claim as untimely, finding no basis to extend the limitations period for alleged continuing discrimination, but allowed the plaintiff to amend the complaint to add a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, which relates back to the original filing date under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c).

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

The case involved competing applications to stay or compel arbitration of disputes under two contracts for the sale of Canadian wheat by a Canadian corporation to two Italian buyers, using standard NAEGA 2 form contracts that included an arbitration clause on the reverse side. The buyers resisted arbitration, arguing lack of assent to the clause during negotiations and that Italian law required arbitration agreements to appear above signatures. The court ordered arbitration to proceed before the American Arbitration Association in New York. It reasoned that the clause was enforceable under federal law pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act and Chapter 2 implementing the UN Convention, as well as under New York law or uniform international principles, given the parties' contractual references and the strong policy favoring arbitration in commercial and international transactions.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case is a private antitrust suit alleging that twelve building maintenance companies conspired to allocate customers. The district court had previously certified the case to proceed as a class action. Defendants then moved for a certification under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) to allow an immediate appeal of that order, arguing it presented a controlling question of law with substantial grounds for disagreement that would advance the litigation. The court denied the motion, reasoning that class certification decisions are inherently fact-specific and discretionary rather than presenting a clear controlling legal question, and that concerns about individualized damages trials were overstated given the likelihood of settlement in such cases.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case was a class action brought by inmates at the Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC), a federal facility housing pretrial detainees and sentenced prisoners, challenging a range of conditions and practices including double-bunking, mail handling, property seizures, literature access, and other operational rules on constitutional and statutory grounds. Some claims were resolved on summary judgment, with the court enjoining double occupancy of rooms, publisher-only literature rules, unreceipted property seizures, and opening of outgoing mail while upholding non-legal mail inspections; preliminary injunctions addressed telephone service and visiting hours. After a full trial involving extensive evidence on the remaining issues, the court issued findings and orders applying legal standards for federal judicial involvement in prison management, weighing security needs, inmate rights, and the facility's design and operations.

criminal lawcivil rights

The case involves the Buffalo Teachers Federation's lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging the Taylor Law's provisions that bar public employee strikes and impose sanctions, specifically the differing procedures for revoking union dues check-off privileges: mandatory withdrawal by the state PERB for unions under its jurisdiction versus discretionary court action or substantially equivalent local mini-PERB processes for others. The plaintiff sought to enjoin an ongoing PERB proceeding that could trigger the sanction, claiming the dual system arbitrarily discriminates against state-jurisdiction unions in violation of equal protection. The court granted the motion for preliminary injunctive relief, finding abstention under Younger v. Harris inappropriate and concluding that the statutory distinction lacked a rational basis in the context of economic regulation while the constitutional challenge proceeded.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case concerns a class action by prisoners at the Federal Metropolitan Correctional Center challenging various conditions of confinement, with a focus on the practice of double-celling inmates in rooms originally designated for single occupancy. Petitioners moved for partial summary judgment on several issues, including the double-celling practice, while respondents cross-moved for dismissal of most claims. The court granted partial summary judgment to petitioners on the double-celling issue after reviewing evidence and inspecting the facility, finding no material factual disputes and determining that the small room sizes and limited space rendered the arrangement improper for two occupants. Other claims, such as those involving emergency bedding in common areas and certain search or property restrictions, were reserved for trial due to unresolved factual or evidentiary issues.

criminal lawcivil rights

The case involves the Buffalo Teachers Federation challenging aspects of New York's Taylor Law on equal protection grounds, specifically the rules for revoking union dues check-off privileges after strikes, which differ based on whether local jurisdictions have their own labor regulations. The defendants, members of the Public Employment Relations Board, moved to transfer the case from the Southern District of New York to the Northern District, arguing improper or inconvenient venue. The court denied the motion, holding that venue was proper because the Board maintains an office and conducts business in New York City, allowing multiple residences for state entities, and that transfer was not justified due to minimal inconvenience and the plaintiff's choice of forum.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

The case involved seven prisoners serving sentences in New York who were transferred from Bedford Hills Correctional Facility to Matteawan State Hospital, a facility for mentally ill prisoners, after disciplinary infractions, without any commitment hearing. The plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction, arguing that the transfer violated their due process and equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment by subjecting them to involuntary confinement and treatment in a mental hospital. The court granted the injunction, ordering that the prisoners not be confined at Matteawan without a judicial hearing and findings supporting commitment. The reasoning was that precedents such as Baxstrom v. Herold require procedural protections for transfers to mental hospitals, and the state's attempt to reclassify part of Matteawan as a 'Bedford Hills Correctional Facility Annex' did not alter its character or allow bypassing those safeguards. The decision focused solely on the transfer claim as a threshold matter.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

The case involved plaintiffs including factoring companies and Medicaid service providers challenging a 1976 federal regulation (45 C.F.R. § 249.31) that prohibited Medicaid payments to or through factors, even when using powers of attorney, as an expansion of a 1972 statutory amendment (42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(32)) banning reassignment of claims. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief against the Secretary of HEW and New York officials, arguing the regulation was invalid, and moved for a preliminary injunction to continue their financing arrangements. The court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction, holding that the regulation was consistent with the statute's language and legislative history aimed at preventing incorrect claims and administrative issues, and that the Secretary acted within his authority to clarify and enforce the prohibition. The decision noted that Congress had considered but declined to override the regulation through new legislation.

healthcarefederal powerbusiness & regulatory

The case involved Hispanic public school students in New York City seeking enforcement of a 1974 consent decree requiring bilingual education programs under federal law, including student identification via testing, instructional standards, staffing, and implementation timetables. The court held the Board of Education and Chancellor in contempt for failing to achieve substantial compliance with key deadlines on testing, personnel, and program rollout. The core reasoning was that defendants had not met the decree's requirements in meaningful respects, had failed to provide required notices of delays, and had not shown good cause for shortfalls in funding or staffing, even though the decree allowed for such showings.

civil rightsprocedure

This case involved a U.S. Customs seizure and forfeiture proceeding under 19 U.S.C. § 1305(a) against a magazine mailed from Germany to a claimant in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, which officials deemed obscene. The court decided that the claimant prevailed, holding that the materials could not be condemned as obscene under the applicable legal standard. The core reasoning was that the community standards for determining obscenity must be drawn from the recipient's local jurisdiction rather than the port of entry where the mail was opened, consistent with conflict-of-laws principles favoring the jurisdiction with the most significant contacts. The court also noted but did not resolve the separate issue of warrantless opening of incoming international mail by customs agents. The opinion addressed related procedural questions, including venue and the government's burden of proof in such in rem actions.

free speechcriminal lawfederal power

The case concerned a class action by Caucasian and Asian applicants denied admission to the Biomedical Program at the Center for Biomedical Education of City College for 1974, who alleged that defendants had intentionally discriminated against them by enforcing a predetermined quota favoring Black and Hispanic applicants, in violation of the Constitution, federal civil rights statutes, and New York education law. After a trial on liability, the court issued findings of fact detailing the program's creation, its admissions committees, and the handling of applications, including requests for ethnic breakdowns of candidates. The court concluded that the individual defendants' actions violated the Equal Protection Clause, as state officials and agencies acting under color of state law cannot deny equal protection on racial grounds, while reserving judgment on certain jurisdictional and damages issues regarding institutional defendants.

civil rights

This case involves claims by the trustees of a foreign investment fund against a law firm and others for securities fraud under U.S. federal laws, alleging a conspiracy to loot the fund by shifting investments from U.S. securities to illiquid foreign entities controlled by Robert Vesco. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing lack of subject-matter jurisdiction due to the predominantly foreign nature of the transactions and failure to state a claim. The court denied the motions, holding that sufficient activities occurred in the United States, including the sale of securities on domestic exchanges and communications, which directly contributed to the alleged fraud, thus allowing the application of U.S. securities laws to protect domestic markets.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

The case involved a defendant who pled guilty to participating in a narcotics conspiracy and committing income tax evasion, exposing him to up to 16 years in prison and substantial fines. The court suspended imposition of sentence and placed the defendant on three years' probation. The decision rested on the defendant's minor role in the offenses, the acquittal of his co-conspirators, and especially his severe physical disabilities as a paraplegic requiring ongoing medical care, which made imprisonment impractical and disproportionate to the goals of sentencing such as deterrence and retribution. The court reasoned that mercy was warranted where the balance between punishment and the defendant's circumstances was uncertain, noting that mandatory minimum sentences would have precluded this outcome.

criminal lawtaxes