Pepper v. J.J. Welcome Construction Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• excusing the plaintiffs conflicting statements, finding it attributable in part to the fact that the later testimony was “far more detailed than the first”
• listing five factors from the Darden test that deserve special consideration in Copyright Act cases
• explaining that, even when control factor weighs in employer’s favor, “[t]he level of skill required of the hired person weighs in favor of independent contractor status” when the hiring party “hired the artist because he himself could not” perform the creative task (drawing)
• “Langman Fabrics is entitled to a statutory presumption . . . that Langman Fabrics was the author of the plume design”
• “[A] party may not create an issue of fact precluding summary judgment by offering an affidavit that contradicts his earlier sworn testimony[.]”
• “Though, of course, a finder of fact may conclude that the later [proffered evidence] suggests fabrication, we are not prepared to say as a matter of law that [it] cannot be considered at the summary judgment stage.’’

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).