Greene v. Ablon
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
794 F.3d 133 (2015)
- Written by Eric Miller, JD
Facts
Ross Greene (plaintiff) wrote a book, The Explosive Child, explaining his collaborative problem-solving (CPS) approach to treating children with explosive behaviors. A few years later, Greene became a mentor to Stuart Ablon (defendant). Greene and Ablon agreed to collaborate on a book, Treating Explosive Kids, which would expand on the materials in Greene’s earlier solo book. Both the prospectus and the publishing contract for the new book identified Greene and Ablon as coauthors. However, Greene was dissatisfied with Ablon’s contribution, and their relationship soured. Ablon subsequently promoted the CPS approach as an employee of Massachusetts General Hospital, including in PowerPoint presentations made for fundraising purposes. Greene brought an action against Ablon in federal district court, alleging that Ablon’s PowerPoint slides infringed Greene’s copyrights in both books, though Greene failed to make an offer of proof. Greene also sought an accounting for Ablon’s use of materials from Treating Explosive Kids in his presentations. Greene and Ablon differed greatly in their assessments of the extent to which Ablon’s writing appeared in Treating Explosive Kids. Summary judgment was granted in favor of Ablon. Greene appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Lipez, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 821,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 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.
