ROSE v. CONNELLY


38 F.Supp. 54 (1941)

ROSE v. CONNELLY et al.

District Court, S. D. New York.

On Reargument April 5, 1941.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

George E. Carmody, of New York City, for plaintiff.

Howard E. Reinheimer, of New York City, for defendants Marc Connelly and Arthur Kober.

Irving Cohen, of New York City, for defendant Mitchell Grayson.


CLARK, Circuit Judge (sitting as District Judge pursuant to statutory designation).

The claim of plagiarism herein seems to me quite fantastic. The two plays differ in plot, in character interest, in background, in general purpose and intent —in short, in substantially all points of reader or theatre interest. Plaintiff's lugubrious drama has a somewhat pretentious, though not unified, story. First we find the heroine and her employer in his business office...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases