T.B. Harms Co. v. Eliscu Case Brief

T.B. Harms Co. v. Eliscu

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
339 F.2d 823 (2d Cir. 1964)

Facts

Vincent Youmans composed and copyrighted four songs. Edward Eliscu (defendant) had certain rights in the copyright. When the copyrights of the songs were about expire, Youmans’s children and Eliscu filed copyright renewal applications with the Copyright Office. The children assigned their rights in the renewal to T.B. Harms (Harms) (plaintiff), but Eliscu assigned his rights to a third party. Eliscu, however, had allegedly agreed to assign his rights to Harms in exchange for certain royalties. Harms brought suit in federal court for declaratory relief, seeking to establish ownership of the copyrights. The United States Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the complaint for lack of federal jurisdiction. Harms appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Holding and Reasoning (Friendly, 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, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Here's why 92,000 law students rely 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.
12,498 briefs - keyed to 168 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.
Ability to tag case briefs in an outlining tool.
Top-notch customer support.