This case involved a claim by plaintiff Gingg that defendants, including Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., infringed her copyright on an unpublished song titled “There’ll Never Be Another You” by creating a similar song “There Will Never Be Another You.” The court ruled in favor of the defendants, granting them judgment with costs and attorneys’ fees. The decision was based on the lack of evidence that defendants had access to the plaintiff's work, no proof of copying, and insufficient substantial similarity between the lyrics and music of the two songs, as supported by precedents noting that common musical elements and sentiments do not constitute infringement.
This case involves a radio performer suing an advertising agency and its client sponsor for alleged anticipatory breaches of two verbal contracts for exclusive radio services, plus a claim that the sponsor wrongfully induced the agency to breach. The complaint contained four counts, with the first two alleging contract repudiation by the agency (alone or as agent), the third alleging breach of a separate replacement-broadcast agreement, and the fourth alleging tortious interference by the sponsor. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the first, second, and fourth counts but denied dismissal of the third count. It held that the first two counts failed to state viable claims against the appropriate parties under the pleaded facts, while the fourth count's interference allegations were insufficient because the sponsor, as principal with an economic interest in the radio program, was privileged to influence its agent's decisions regarding talent; the third count adequately pleaded a direct breach claim.
This case involved a lawsuit by an unincorporated association of tuna fishing boat owners seeking a refund of income and excess profits taxes paid for 1933 and 1936-1940, which the Commissioner of Internal Revenue had refused to return. The sole issue was whether the association qualified as a tax-exempt 'business league' under the relevant Revenue Acts. The court, relying on the association's activities such as negotiating industry standards and prices with canners, funding scientific research on fish preservation, improving inspection methods, mediating labor disputes, advocating for favorable tariffs and regulations, and assisting in wartime efforts, determined that its purposes were to promote fairness, honesty, and better conditions in the tuna fishing industry. No dividends were distributed, any profit-making activities were incidental, and no special services were provided to members without adequate compensation. Based on precedents like Crooks v. Kansas City Hay Dealers’ Association, the court held that the association was a business league and thus exempt from the taxes at issue.
This case involves a corporate reorganization proceeding under federal bankruptcy law for Maier Brewing Co., initiated by a creditors' petition in December 1940, which approved the appointment of trustees. Pacific Indemnity Company had filed a state court foreclosure action on a chattel mortgage, assignment, and deed of trust securing a note, alleging default on interest payments, and sought to proceed despite the bankruptcy filing. The court decided that approval of the reorganization petition automatically stayed continuation of the foreclosure suit to allow time for restructuring, and that the bankruptcy court has jurisdiction to resolve all related issues, including whether the debtor cured the default. The reasoning rests on the federal bankruptcy framework governing the debtor's estate and the incorporation of state law defenses into contract obligations, as supported by U.S. Supreme Court precedent on sovereign power reservations in contracts.
The case involved a taxpayer who filed a 1930 federal income tax return reporting half of her husband's separate income as community income, paid the resulting tax despite having no income or liability of her own, and later sought a refund after the IRS confirmed the income was the husband's separate property. The IRS rejected the refund claim as untimely under the two-year limit of Section 322(b)(1) of the Revenue Act of 1928, but the court determined that Section 3228(a) of the Revised Statutes provided a four-year filing period for claims involving erroneously assessed and collected taxes. Because the plaintiff's June 1933 claim fell within that four-year window, the court concluded she was entitled to judgment for the refund.
This case involves a lawsuit by a minor child and her parents against Sears Roebuck & Co., the vendor of a defective stove, for injuries sustained when the stove's cover fell and spilled hot water on the child. The court, applying principles from the Restatement of the Law of Torts regarding the liability of suppliers of chattels known to be dangerous, overruled the defendant's general demurrer, finding that the complaint adequately stated a claim. However, the court required the plaintiffs to amend their complaint to provide more specific details on the special damages claimed by the parents and the duration of the defendant's knowledge of the defects.
