Logourl black
From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...

A. A. Hoehling v. Universal City Studios, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
618 F.2d 972 (1980)


Facts

A. A. Hoehling (plaintiff) published a book in 1962 about the Hindenburg dirigible. The book postulated that the Hindenburg’s explosion was the result of sabotage, rather than an accident. The saboteur was alleged to be a rigger on the Hindenburg named Eric Spehl. Hoehling thoroughly researched the Hindenburg and Spehl by reading contemporaneous accounts and interviewing survivors of the explosion. Hoehling concluded that Spehl was a saboteur based on Spehl’s access to the area where the explosion began and the fact that Spehl’s love interest was an anti-Nazi communist. The book was written as a factual narrative. Ten years later, Michael MacDonald Mooney (defendant) published a book of historical fiction, and the original outline for the book was sold as movie rights to Universal City Studios, Inc. (Universal) (defendant). Mooney’s novel included a subplot in which a fictional representation of Spehl planned the explosion for reasons similar to those postulated in Hoehling’s book. The movie rights that Universal purchased were developed into a screenplay by Nelson Gidding, who had written an unpublished work on the Hindenburg 20 years earlier. The movie changed Spehl’s name to Boeth and included the general rationale for naming Boeth as a saboteur, although there were a number of other subplots and fictional characters as well. The works by Hoehling, Mooney, and Gidding all contained scenes of the ship’s crew in a German beer hall before the voyage, as well certain German greetings relevant to the time, such as “Heil Hitler.” Hoehling filed a copyright-infringement suit against Universal and Mooney. The district court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Hoehling appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Kaufman, C.J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 221,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.