Cheever v. Academy Chicago Ltd.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• “The claims which are put forth by the plaintiffs in the amended complaint are not a part of the publishing agreement, and, indeed, attempt to reject it as a source of any license with respect to their copyrights.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

6 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Phillips v. Audio Active Ltd.
  Second Circuit· 2007-07-24· cited 434×
• N. Parent, Inc. v. Cotter & Co. (In Re N. Parent, Inc.)
  D. Massachusetts· 1998-06-26· cited 42×
• Corcovado Music Corp. v. Hollis Music, Inc., Bendig Music Corp., Songways Service, Inc.
  Second Circuit· 1993-01-05· cited 34×
• Graham Technology Solutions, Inc. v. Thinking Pictures, Inc.
  N.D. California· 1997-01-07· cited 15×
• Cheever v. Academy Chicago, Ltd.
  S.D. New York· 1988-08-02· cited 6×
• Xiao Wei Yang Catering Linkage in Inner Mongolia Co. v. Inner Mongolia Xiao Wei Yang USA, Inc.
  D. Massachusetts· 2015-12-14· cited 2×

Other cases named Cheever v. Academy Chicago Ltd.

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

• Cheever v. Academy Chicago, Ltd.
  S.D. New York· 1988-08-02· cited 6×