Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc.
United States Supreme Court
510 U.S. 517 (1994)
- Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD
Facts
John Fogerty (defendant) was lead singer and songwriter of the band Creedence Clearwater Revival. In 1970, he wrote a song called “Run Through the Jungle” and sold the publishing rights to the predecessor of Fantasy, Incorporated (plaintiff), which later acquired the copyright to the song. Long after the band broke up, Fogerty published and copyrighted a song called “The Old Man Down the Road” on an album distributed by Warner Brothers Records, Inc. (Warner Brothers) (defendant). Fantasy sued Fogerty and Warner Brothers for copyright infringement, claiming “The Old Man Down the Road” was “Run Through the Jungle” with new words. After the jury found Fogerty had not infringed Fantasy’s copyright, Fogerty requested an award of attorney fees. The district court denied the request under the Ninth Circuit “dual standard” of awarding attorney fees for prevailing plaintiffs but not prevailing defendants unless the lawsuit was frivolous or brought with a vexatious purpose. Fogerty appealed, but the Ninth Circuit affirmed. Noting that other circuits applied the “even-handed” approach of granting attorney fees to either prevailing party without different standards, the Supreme Court granted Fogerty’s petition for review.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Rehnquist, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 781,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 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.
