The Ray Charles Foundation v. Raenee Robinson

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that although Foundation’s interest was not expressly identified, the interest was one “Congress contemplated, regulated, and protected in enacting the [the Copyright Act’s] termination provisions”
• noting that the Copyright Office has expressly stated that it \serves as an office of public record\ (quoting Compendium of Copyright Office Practices III § 2305 (2014) )
• alleging “that the notices of termination immediately clouded [the Foundation’s] ability to assess its future income stream and to rely on the royalties”
• finding allegations “that the notices of termination immediately clouded [the Foundation’s] ability to assess its future income stream and to rely on the royalties” sufficient for ripeness purposes
• “[C]ourts have treated the limitation on third-party standing as a prudential principle that requires plaintiffs to assert their own legal rights.”
• “[C]ourts have treated the limitation on third-party standing as a prudential principle that requires plaintiffs to assert their own legal rights.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).