Banks v. Manchester

1888 United States Supreme Court case
Banks v. Manchester
Submitted October 29, 1888
Decided November 19, 1888
Full case nameBanks v. Manchester
Citations128 U.S. 244 (more)
9 S. Ct. 36; 32 L. Ed. 425
Holding
States cannot confer copyrights on public domain case records to citizens or to states themselves.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Melville Fuller
Associate Justices
Samuel F. Miller · Stephen J. Field
Joseph P. Bradley · John M. Harlan
Stanley Matthews · Horace Gray
Samuel Blatchford · Lucius Q. C. Lamar II
Case opinion
MajorityBlatchford, joined by unanimous

Banks v. Manchester, 128 U.S. 244 (1888), was a United States Supreme Court ruling that dealt with copyright.

Background

In 1882, to facilitate the printing of records of the Supreme Court of Ohio, the State of Ohio passed a resolution to establish a copyright held by the Supreme Court of Ohio's court reporter and advertised a contract for the lowest bidder to print copies of the records for Ohio in exchange for obtaining exclusive publishing rights for two years. H. W. Derby & Company won the bidding war and assigned all their right and interest in the contract to Banks & Brothers. Banks then contracted the Capital Printing and Publishing Company to print the books.

Banks proceeded to print various reports such as Bierce et al. v. Bierce et al. and The Scioto Valley Railway Company v. McCoy. Although for a time exclusive to Banks's publications, G. L. Manchester published the cases in the American Law Journal, a periodical. Banks sought to stop Manchester from printing the cases. Manchester refused because judges had authored the decisions and so he claimed that Banks did not have a copyright. Banks's position was that the state's copyright, which was held by court reporter E. L. De Witt and licensed to Banks & Brothers, afforded exclusivity.

Decision

The Court ruled that the state could not hold a copyright and affirmed its decision in Wheaton v. Peters[1] by stating "what a court or a judge thereof cannot confer on a reporter as the basis of a copyright in him, they cannot confer on any other person or on the state."[2]

References

  1. ^ Wheaton v. Peters, 33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 591 (1834).
  2. ^ Banks v. Manchester, 128 U.S. 244 (1888).

External links

  • Text of Banks v. Manchester, 128 U.S. 244 (1888) is available from: Cornell  Google Scholar  Justia  Library of Congress 
  • v
  • t
  • e
U.S. Supreme Court Article I case law
Enumeration Clause of Section II
Qualifications Clauses of Sections II and III
Elections Clause of Section IV
Origination Clause of Section VII
Presentment Clause of Section VII
Commerce Clause of Section VIII
Dormant Commerce Clause
Others
Coinage Clause of Section VIII
Legal Tender Cases
Copyright Act of 1790
Patent Act of 1793
Patent infringement case law
Patentability case law
Copyright Act of 1831
Copyright Act of 1870
Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890
International Copyright Act of 1891
Copyright Act of 1909
Patent misuse case law
Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914
Lanham Act
Copyright Act of 1976
Other copyright cases
Other patent cases
Other trademark cases
Habeas corpus Suspension Clause of Section IX
No Bills of Attainder or Ex post facto Laws Clause of Section IX
Contract Clause of Section X
Legal Tender Cases
Others
Compact Clause of Section X
  • v
  • t
  • e
Statutes
Pre-1976
1970s
1980s
1990s
2000s
2010s
2020s
Precedents
and rulings
Supreme Court
Appeals courts
Lower courts


Stub icon

This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

  • v
  • t
  • e