Kirby vs. Marvel to the Supreme Court?

[Ares]

I thought I read that the justices talked about the Kirby case in a private hearing/conference and that that implied they were interested in hearing the case formally.

 

I just looked at the Court's docket and didn't see anything regarding this case.

where is it?

[shadroch]

The key element here is that Disney is the Devil, and would fight to the death with your crippled grandmother over a nickel in the street.

 

This is the same company who willfully ripped off a children's hospital on owed revenues from the Peter Pan movies, toys and licenses. Not only that, but they recently cancelled another upcoming Peter Pan movie because they'd have to slide a few bucks to help some sick, injured, crippled, and dying kids.

 

Disney is *not* "just a corporation looking to protect its assets", it's the worst example of American greed gone wild.

 

 

Wasn't this supposedly " recently canceled" Peter Pan movie actually released over ten years ago?

Disney ended its involvement in the film but it went ahead anyway, with mixed results.

 

From wiki

Peter Pan is a 2003 fantasy film released by Universal Pictures, Columbia Pictures and Revolution Studios. It was the first authorized and faithful film or TV adaptation of J.M. Barrie's play in half a century, after Disney's version in 1953. P. J. Hogan directed a screenplay co-written with Michael Goldenberg which is based on the classic play and novel by J. M. Barrie. Jason Isaacs plays the roles of Captain Hook and George Darling, Olivia Williams plays Mrs. Darling, while Jeremy Sumpter plays Peter Pan, Rachel Hurd-Wood portrays Wendy Darling, and Ludivine Sagnier plays Tinker Bell. Lynn Redgrave plays a supporting role as Aunt Millicent, a new character created for the film. Contrary to the traditional stage casting, it featured a young boy in the title role.

 

 

[zosocane]

I thought I read that the justices talked about the Kirby case in a private hearing/conference and that that implied they were interested in hearing the case formally.

 

I just looked at the Court's docket and didn't see anything regarding this case.

where is it?

 

http://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docket.aspx

[shadroch]

"This is the same company who willfully ripped off a children's hospital on owed revenues from the Peter Pan movies, toys and licenses. Not only that, but they recently cancelled another upcoming Peter Pan movie because they'd have to slide a few bucks to help some sick, injured, crippled, and dying kids. "

 

This coming from the guy who welched on a $100 bet that was to go to sick, cripppled, injured and dying kids is ironic, to say the least.

 

Anyone know how Disney can cancel a movie that ten years old?

[shadroch]

This is kind of funny to me because some boardies told me this would never happen. This is America's court system. Of course it could happen.

 

I'll be watching this case with a lot of interest.

 

Technically, nothing has happened yet before the Supreme Court of the United States -- just the filing of a certiorari petition (basically,a "please, please hear my case" request) from the Kirby estate and amici briefs from supporters of the estate seeking the Supreme Court to reverse the federal appellate court's ruling in favor of Marvel. The Supreme Court generally has complete discretion in deciding whether to hear a case. I haven't read the briefs, but based on what I've read in the press describing this as classic work-for-hire, I don't think the Court is going to say that it will hear the case.

 

 

Isn't the Kirby case simply one of thousands of cases before the court, which usually only hears a small fraction of them?

[Ares]

I thought I read that the justices talked about the Kirby case in a private hearing/conference and that that implied they were interested in hearing the case formally.

 

I just looked at the Court's docket and didn't see anything regarding this case.

where is it?

 

http://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docket.aspx

 

Thanks

[zosocane]

This is kind of funny to me because some boardies told me this would never happen. This is America's court system. Of course it could happen.

 

I'll be watching this case with a lot of interest.

 

Technically, nothing has happened yet before the Supreme Court of the United States -- just the filing of a certiorari petition (basically,a "please, please hear my case" request) from the Kirby estate and amici briefs from supporters of the estate seeking the Supreme Court to reverse the federal appellate court's ruling in favor of Marvel. The Supreme Court generally has complete discretion in deciding whether to hear a case. I haven't read the briefs, but based on what I've read in the press describing this as classic work-for-hire, I don't think the Court is going to say that it will hear the case.

 

 

Isn't the Kirby case simply one of thousands of cases before the court, which usually only hears a small fraction of them?

 

That's right. "When exercising its appellate jurisdiction, the Court, with a few exceptions, does not have to hear a case. The Certiorari Act of 1925 gives the Court the discretion to decide whether or not to do so. In a petition for a writ of certiorari, a party asks the Court to review its case. The Supreme Court agrees to hear about 100-150 of the more than 7,000 cases that it is asked to review each year." http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/get-informed/supreme-court/about-supreme-court.aspx

[shadroch]

So its about a 95% chance they simply don't take it on.

[zosocane]

So its about a 95% chance they simply don't take it on.

 

Statistically speaking, yes. Cases that tend to get heard are (i) those where one federal appellate court's ruling in one part of the country is in direct conflict with another federal appellate court's ruling in another part of the country and (ii) those that raise novel constitutional law issues.

[Ares]

I thought I read that the justices talked about the Kirby case in a private hearing/conference and that that implied they were interested in hearing the case formally.

 

I just looked at the Court's docket and didn't see anything regarding this case.

 

I looked as well and I found this

 

 

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/13-1178.htm

 

No. 13-1178

Title:

Lisa R. Kirby, et al., Petitioners

v.

Marvel Characters, Incorporated, et al.

Docketed: March 28, 2014

Linked with 13A608

Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Case Nos.: (11-3333)

Decision Date: August 8, 2013

Rehearing Denied: October 22, 2013

 

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dec 11 2013 Application (13A608) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from January 20, 2014 to March 21, 2014, submitted to Justice Ginsburg.

Dec 13 2013 Application (13A608) granted by Justice Ginsburg extending the time to file until March 21, 2014.

Mar 21 2014 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 28, 2014)

Apr 24 2014 Waiver of right of respondents Marvel Characters, Incorporated, et al. to respond filed.

Apr 29 2014 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 15, 2014.

May 14 2014 Response Requested . (Due June 13, 2014)

May 28 2014 Order extending time to file response to petition to and including July 14, 2014.

Jun 13 2014 Brief amici curiae of Bruce Lehman, et al. filed.

Jun 13 2014 Brief amicus curiae of The California Society of Entertainment Lawyers filed.

Jun 13 2014 Brief amici curiae of Mark Evanier, John Morrow, and Pen Center USA filed.

Jun 13 2014 Brief amici curiae of Screen Actors Guild - American Federation of Television Artists, et al. filed.

[jaybuck43]

The court has up until the end of this term to decide what cases it will hear in the next term. They generally hear about 100 cases per term, receiving thousands of wrtis. the chances this case actually gets heard is basically 1-5%