U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 1974

Meredith Corp. v. Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Decided July 8, 1974

500 F.2d 1221; 182 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 577 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Marshall C. Berger, New York City (Hahn, Hessen, Margolis & Ryan, New York City, Molinare, Allegretti, Newitt & Witcoff, Chicago, 111., William J. Daly, Jr., New York City, George B. Newitt, George P. McAndrews, Chicago, 111., Wayne Carson, New York City, on the brief), for plaintiff-appellant and additional defendants-appellants., John C. Lankenau, New York City (Lankenau, Kovner, Bickford & Beer, Victor A. Kovner, Edward A. Miller, Nathaniel J. Bickford, New York City, on the brief), for defendants-appellees.

Cases that cite this one

6 later published cases cite this decision.

Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises (2d Cir. 1983)
New Era Publications International, Aps, a Corporation of Denmark v. Henry Holt and Company, Inc., a New York Corporation (2d Cir. 1989)
Werlin v. Reader's Digest Ass'n, Inc. (District Court, S.D. New York 1981)
Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders, Inc. v. Scoreboard Posters, Inc. And Arny Freytag, Texas Cowgirls, Inc. (5th Cir. 1979)
American Greetings Corp. v. Kleinfab Corp. (District Court, S.D. New York 1975)
Meredith Corporation v. Harper & Row (2d Cir. 1974)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM:

The appellants assert error in the grant of a preliminary injunction.

This is essentially a dispute between the publishers of competing textbooks in the child development field. The defendants-appellees, seeking redress as copyright holders, convinced Judge Owen upon a persuasive factual record that they would probably succeed on the merits, that the appellants had plagiarized their textbook, and that there was need for immediate relief. There was a sufficient basis for the findings and conclusions of the District Court and since they are not clearly erroneous, Fed.R. Civ.P. 52(a), we affirm.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.