30 Cited authorities

Badie v. Bank of America
67 Cal.App.4th 779 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) Cited 1,269 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a credit card company could not introduce an alternative dispute resolution provision through a "bill stuffer" where nothing in the original agreement mentioned dispute resolution
Johnson Higgins Inc. v. Kenneco Energy
962 S.W.2d 507 (Tex. 1998) Cited 968 times
Holding that close relationship between claims under Texas Insurance Code and DTPA required application of DTPA's two-year limitations period
Winet v. Price
4 Cal.App.4th 1159 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992) Cited 660 times
In Winet, the California Court of Appeals interpreted Section 1542 as holding that only the outward expression of the parties was indicative of the releaser's state of mind. Based upon the rationale of Winet, Chief Judge Lambros rejected Gillig's attempt to establish his state of mind at the time of the execution of the release.
Schroeder v. Texas Iron Works, Inc.
813 S.W.2d 483 (Tex. 1991) Cited 435 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that a complainant "must first exhaust the [Texas Human Rights Act's] administrative remedies prior to bringing a civil action"
Hess v. Ford Motor Company
27 Cal.4th 516 (Cal. 2002) Cited 285 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the doctrine of mistake cannot be used to create a new contract between the parties
Banner Entm't, Inc. v. Superior Court
62 Cal.App.4th 348 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) Cited 198 times 2 Legal Analyses
Concluding mandatory means of assenting established by two sentences: "'Until such time, if ever, as such more formal agreement i . . . concluded, this agreement when signed by the parties hereto will constitute a legal and binding obligation of the parties. Please acknowledge your approval of the foregoing terms by signing a copy of this letter in the space indicated below'"
Jordan Video, Inc. v. 144942 Canada Inc.
617 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2010) Cited 133 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that plaintiff's inadvertent mistake in naming the sole shareholder, rather than the entity, as the author of the work did not invalidate the work's copyright
Quintanilla v. Texas Television Inc.
139 F.3d 494 (5th Cir. 1998) Cited 136 times
Holding that plaintiffs who pleaded copyright-infringement claim did not plead claim for accounting of copyright co-owners and affirming summary judgment and denial of leave to amend to add accounting claim where “summary judgment motion was prepared based on the pleadings on file”
Garcia v. Truck Ins. Exchange
36 Cal.3d 426 (Cal. 1984) Cited 184 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that, for purposes of contract interpretation, drawing reasonable inferences from uncontroverted evidence is for the court rather than the jury to decide
Brennan's Inc. v. Dickie Brennan Co.
376 F.3d 356 (5th Cir. 2004) Cited 94 times
Holding expert testimony of hypothetical damages for breach of contract, based on putting plaintiff in position it would have occupied but for breach, is one proper measure of damages
Rule 50 - Judgment as a Matter of Law in a Jury Trial; Related Motion for a New Trial; Conditional Ruling
Fed. R. Civ. P. 50 Cited 13,647 times 62 Legal Analyses
Allowing "renewed motion"
Section 106 - Exclusive rights in copyrighted works
17 U.S.C. § 106 Cited 3,761 times 108 Legal Analyses
Granting the owners of copyrights in “literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works” the exclusive right “to display the copyrighted work publicly”
Section 1636 - Mutual intention of parties
Cal. Civ. Code § 1636 Cited 1,823 times 1 Legal Analyses
Providing a "contract must be so interpreted as to give effect to the mutual intention of the parties as it existed at the time of contracting , so far as the same is ascertainable and lawful"
Section 201 - Ownership of copyright
17 U.S.C. § 201 Cited 950 times 26 Legal Analyses
Providing that copyright in a work "vests initially in the author"
Section 1647 - Reference to circumstances under which made
Cal. Civ. Code § 1647 Cited 552 times
Permitting court to consider circumstances under which contract was made and the matter to which it relates
Section 204 - Execution of transfers of copyright ownership
17 U.S.C. § 204 Cited 490 times 15 Legal Analyses
Requiring that a transfer of copyright ownership must be made in a signed writing
Section 1635 - Generally
Cal. Civ. Code § 1635 Cited 180 times 2 Legal Analyses
Codifying these interpretive principles

Isbell v. DM Records Inc

30 Cited authorities

Holding that a credit card company could not introduce an alternative dispute resolution provision through a "bill stuffer" where nothing in the original agreement mentioned dispute resolution

Holding that close relationship between claims under Texas Insurance Code and DTPA required application of DTPA's two-year limitations period

Holding that a complainant "must first exhaust the [Texas Human Rights Act's] administrative remedies prior to bringing a civil action"

Holding that the doctrine of mistake cannot be used to create a new contract between the parties

Holding that plaintiff's inadvertent mistake in naming the sole shareholder, rather than the entity, as the author of the work did not invalidate the work's copyright

Holding that plaintiffs who pleaded copyright-infringement claim did not plead claim for accounting of copyright co-owners and affirming summary judgment and denial of leave to amend to add accounting claim where “summary judgment motion was prepared based on the pleadings on file”

Holding that, for purposes of contract interpretation, drawing reasonable inferences from uncontroverted evidence is for the court rather than the jury to decide

Holding expert testimony of hypothetical damages for breach of contract, based on putting plaintiff in position it would have occupied but for breach, is one proper measure of damages

Allowing "renewed motion"

Granting the owners of copyrights in “literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works” the exclusive right “to display the copyrighted work publicly”

Providing a "contract must be so interpreted as to give effect to the mutual intention of the parties as it existed at the time of contracting , so far as the same is ascertainable and lawful"

Providing that copyright in a work "vests initially in the author"

Permitting court to consider circumstances under which contract was made and the matter to which it relates

Requiring that a transfer of copyright ownership must be made in a signed writing

Codifying these interpretive principles