Kay Advertising Co. v. Olde London Transportation Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that removal to federal court was proper because plaintiff’s Virginia Computer Crimes Act Claim was preempted by the federal Copyright Act
• holding that the Copyright Act completely preempted a plaintiff’s Virginia-law claims
• noting that Congress had stated “[t]he declaration ... in section 301 is intended to be stated in the clearest and most unequivocal language possible, so as to foreclose any conceivable misinterpretation of its unqualified intention that Congress shall act preemptively”
• relying on Federal Railway Safety Act’s grant of exclusive jurisdiction to federal courts to find complete preemption
• “[A]ctions pre-empted by [sec- tion] 301(a) of the Copyright Act [are to] be regarded as arising un- der federal law.”
• Court must consider whether party’s positions were frivolous or well grounded in the law

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).