Denker v. Uhry
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
820 F. Supp. 722 (1992)
- Written by Katrina Sumner, JD
Facts
Henry Denker (plaintiff) authored a novel, first published in 1979, and a play entitled Horowitz and Mrs. Washington. Denker’s story depicted a 72-year old Jewish man in New York City who suffered a stroke and needed home care. Horowitz was described as a bigot, hostile to non-Whites, and horrified to learn that his son had hired Mrs. Washington, an African American caretaker. Over the course of the story, Horowitz came to see the error of his ways, became friends with his devoted caretaker, and regained his independence. When Alfred Uhry (defendant) brought his acclaimed play, Driving Mrs. Daisy, to the stage in 1987 and to the big screen in 1988, Denker believed the work was an infringement of his own play. In Driving Mrs. Daisy, a 72-year-old Jewish woman could no longer drive herself due to her age. After she crashed her car into her neighbor’s yard, her son hired Hoke Coleburn, an African American chauffeur. Set against the backdrop of the segregated South, Mrs. Daisy was strong-willed and initially hostile toward Mr. Coleburn. Over the course of 25 years in the story, Mrs. Daisy softened her stance, recognized her devoted chauffeur was her only friend, and eventually was confined to a nursing home due to her age. Denker brought suit alleging improper appropriation. Uhry motioned for summary judgment.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Mukasey, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.
