Papa's-June Music, Inc. v. McLean

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that that a lyricist’s act of endorsing royalty checks did not satisfy the writing requirement of 204(a
• holding that merely appending allegations about state of mind to the breach of contract claim is not sufficient to give rise to distinct fraud claim
• holding that where “the only fraud alleged arises out of the same facts that serve as the basis for the breach of contract claim” . . . the “fraud claim fails to state a claim for fraud on which relief can be granted”
• noting that the Second Circuit has explained that Section 204(a
• “dismissing fraud claim where ‘[t]he complaint does not allege a fraud claim that is sufficiently distinct from the breach of contract claim’ but ‘merely appends allegations about [defendant's] state of mind to the claim for breach of contract’”
• changing lyrics to make them more “singable” was a sufficient contribution

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).