Desny v Wilder.doc - Desny v Wilder 46 Cal.2d 715(1956 299...

This preview shows page 1 - 2 out of 17 pages.

Desny v. Wilder, 46 Cal.2d 715 (1956) 299 P.2d 257, 110 U.S.P.Q. 433 KeyCite Yellow Flag - Negative Treatment 1 Disagreed With by Reeves v. Alyeska Pipeline Service Co., Alaska, November 22, 1996 46 Cal.2d 715 Supreme Court of California, In Bank. Victor DESNY , Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Billy WILDER , Paramount Pictures Corporation, a corporation, and Paramount Film Distributing Corporation, a corporation, Defendants and Respondents. L. A. 23892. | June 28, 1956. Synopsis Action against moving picture producer to recover for use of plaintiff’s story. The Superior Court, Los Angeles County, Stanley Mosk, J., granted summary judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appealed. The Supreme Court, Schauer, J., held that pleadings and affidavits raised substantial fact issues as to whether writer had submitted synopsis to producer on condition that he should be paid if story were used, and whether producer had in fact used material from the synopsis, which was based on historical facts, precluding summary judgment. Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded; attempted appeals dismissed. Opinion, 286 P.2d 55, vacated. Attorneys and Law Firms **260 *723 Milo V. Olson and Frank DeMarco, Jr., Los Angeles, for appellant. Pacht, Ross, Warne & Bernhard, Isaac Pacht and Gordon Stulberg, Los Angeles, as amici curiae, on behalf of appellant. O’Melveny & Myers, W. B. Carman, William W. Alsup, Everett B. Clary, Philip F. Westbrook, Jr., Louis W. Myers, Sidney Justin and Melville B. Nimmer, Los Angeles, for respondents. Loeb & Loeb, Mitchell, Silberverg & Knupp, Los Angeles, Cruikshank, Jones & Gershon, Herman F. Selvin and Harry L. Gershon, Beverly Hills, as amici curiae on behalf of respondents. Opinion Plaintiff appeals from a summary judgment rendered against him in this action to recover the reasonable value of a literary composition, or of an idea for a photoplay, a synopsis of which composition, embodying the idea, he asserts he submitted to defendants for sale, and which synopsis and idea, plaintiff alleges, were accepted and used by defendants in producing a photoplay. The case as presented to us is perplexed by manifold problems, some of which appear only upon a composite view of the pleadings, the evidence, and the briefs on appeal. Among the questions are these: ‘Is the plaintiff seeking to recover for (a) the conveyance 1 of an abstract idea or (b) the sale *724 of a literary property? Or (c) is he clutching at both theories? (d) Does plaintiff’s evidence tend to show an express or implied contract or (e) faces from which the law might impose a so-called quasi-contractual obligation, as to either the idea or the synopsis? The ultimate question is (f), Does the record permit the conclusion that there is no triable issue of material fact pertinent to any tenable theory available to plaintiff? To answer the above listed questions with any substantial degree of confidence requires statement of the factual substance of the record, explanation of the nature of the judgment appealed from and the rules governing our consideration of it, together also with some discussion of SCHAUER, Justice.

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture