Mann v. Columbia Pictures, Warren Beatty and Robert Towne

128 Cal. App. 3d 628, 180 Cal. Rptr. 522 (1982)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Mann v. Columbia Pictures, Warren Beatty and Robert Towne

California Court of Appeal
128 Cal. App. 3d 628, 180 Cal. Rptr. 522 (1982)

Facts

Bernice Mann (plaintiff) wrote an outline for a motion picture entitled Women Plus and registered the work with the Writers Guild of America. Through a mutual friend, Mann submitted Women Plus and one other work to an employee of Columbia Pictures (defendant). However, the employee never submitted it to Columbia and instead gave the two submissions to a story editor at the company Filmmakers. Filmmakers rejected the other submission via letter but never explicitly rejected Women Plus. Years later, Columbia released the film Shampoo. Mann filed suit against Columbia and the film writers, Warren Beatty and Robert Towne (defendants). Mann alleged that her submission amounted to an implied-in-fact contract. At trial, Beatty and Towne gave uncontroverted testimony that they never had access to Women Plus. Nevertheless, a jury found similarities between the films and awarded Mann $185,000. On defense counsel’s motion, the trial court entered a judgment notwithstanding the verdict and found that there was no evidence to support the jury’s finding. Mann appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Stephens, J.)

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 816,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  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.

Here's why 816,000 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership