Connection lost
Server error
CHRISTOPHER PHELPS & ASSOCIATES, LLC v. GALLOWAY Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: An architectural firm sued a homeowner for building a house with its copyrighted plans. The court affirmed a damages award but denied an injunction preventing the future sale of the infringing house, finding such a remedy too draconian and an improper restraint on the alienation of real property.
Legal Significance: This case clarifies the application of the eBay four-factor test for permanent injunctions in architectural copyright infringement, establishing that an injunction preventing the sale of a completed, infringing structure may be denied when the balance of hardships and public policy against restraining property alienation weigh against it.
CHRISTOPHER PHELPS & ASSOCIATES, LLC v. GALLOWAY Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
R. Wayne Galloway obtained a copy of architectural plans for the “Bridgeford Residence,” designed and copyrighted by Christopher Phelps & Associates, LLC (“Phelps”). Believing he had permission from the original homeowner, Galloway used the plans, which bore Phelps’ copyright notice, to construct his own home. Phelps discovered the infringement when the house was over halfway complete and filed suit. The Bridgeford Residence design was a modification of an earlier Phelps design, but Phelps was the author and copyright owner of all constituent elements. A jury found Galloway liable for copyright infringement, awarding Phelps $20,000 in actual damages, which represented the firm’s standard fee for such plans. The jury found Galloway had realized no profits to disgorge. The district court denied Phelps’ subsequent motion for a permanent injunction that would have prohibited the future sale or lease of the house and required the destruction of the infringing plans, reasoning that the damages award had made Phelps “whole.”
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Did the district court abuse its discretion by denying a permanent injunction that would prohibit the future sale or lease of a house built in violation of an architectural copyright, after the copyright holder was awarded actual damages for the infringement?
No. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying an Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Did the district court abuse its discretion by denying a permanent injunction that would prohibit the future sale or lease of a house built in violation of an architectural copyright, after the copyright holder was awarded actual damages for the infringement?
Conclusion
This case establishes important limits on equitable remedies for architectural copyright infringement, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco l
Legal Rule
A plaintiff seeking a permanent injunction in a copyright case must demonstrate: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia
Legal Analysis
The court applied the four-factor test from *eBay* to Phelps' request for Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur.
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- When an author owns the copyright to both an underlying work