Summary
finding that the district court erred in failing to grant defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law because there was absolutely no evidence that any third party was aware that plaintiff's title to the subject property might be infirm
Summary of this case from Lemartec Corp. v. Berkeley Cnty. Solid Waste Auth.Opinion
No. 96-1827 (CA-91-8-3).
Filed: December 11, 1997.
ORDER
The Court amends its opinion filed October 22, 1997, as follows:
On page 10, first full paragraph, line 17 — a new footnote 7 is added at the end of the final sentence of the paragraph, which reads:
We note that Killette and Pittman also agreed to amend the copyrights to the three songs to reflect joint authorship. Because the district court concluded that the agreement between Killette and Pittman did not provide for a present transfer of the copyrights, the issue of authorship was erroneously presented to the jury. Similarly, the district court erred in deciding whether Pittman was still entitled to writer's royalties.
The previous footnotes 7 and 8 are renumbered 8 and 9, respectively.
For the Court — By Direction
/s/ Patricia S. Connor
Clerk