State ex rel. Cole v. Francisco (1982)

Buy on Amazon

Overview: In this case that is being heard by the Supreme Court of Tennessee, James P. Cole and Charles C. Thompson, II (professional journalists employed by the ABC news magazine 20/20 & later authors of The Death of Elvis: What Really Happened?) are asking the court to require the Shelby County Medical Examiner, Jerry T. Francisco, to make various documents available that related to Elvis' death and autopsy.

In addition, they are also attempting to have the court require the District Attorney General, Hugh Stanton, to intervene in the action as a plaintiff.

The Court rules against Cole & Thompson on both issues.

Medical Examiner's Report (Autopsy) on the Death of Elvis Presley

Below is a PDF copy of the the medical examiner's report that was carried out on Elvis after his death. This 2-page report was signed and submitted by the Shelby County Medical Examiner, Dr. Jerry Francisco.

The cause of death noted on this report was "H.C.V.D. associated with ASHD" which refers to "Hypertensive Cardiovascular Disease associated with Arteriosclerotic Heart Disease."


Note, as clarified on the Elvis Decoded blog, this report is NOT the official autopsy report, which is the private property of the Presley family. Also, this is not the official death certificate, which, under Tennessee law will be kept private for 50 years after Elvis' death and will therefore be made public in 2027.

Board of County Commissioners of Shelby County v. Taylor (1994)

Dr. Jerry T. Francisco
(photo by Alan Spearman)

Overview: This is a suit by the Board of Commissioners of Shelby County in which they are asking the court to issue a write of mandamus to require the State Registrar of Vital Records "to investigate any and all irregularities or possible violations of law involving statements on the death certificate of Mr. (Elvis) Presley, including a thorough, objective inspection of all medical records surrounding his death."

(Note: Mandamus is a legal term that refers to a court issuing a writ that orders a public agency, official, or governmental body to perform an act required by law when it has neglected or refused to do so.)

The defendant filed a motion to dismiss this case, which was sustained by the lower court and the suit was dismissed. Here, the plaintiffs are appealing and presenting two issues to the appellate court to determine. The appellate court affirms the ruling of the lower court.

Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Aartie Restaurant Management, Inc. (1993)

The old Federal Courthouse, Tampa

Overview: Plaintiff songwriters and music publishers sue for copyright infringement by unlicensed public performance of copyrighted material in defendant's restaurant.

Elvis Presley Music is a co-plaintiff in this case.

The court also discusses summary judgment issues.

When Elvis Met Nixon: The Documents (Part Two) -The Chapin Memo

Dwight Chapin

Overview: This memo was written by White House aide, Dwight Chapin, to H. R. Hadelman (White House Chief of Staff to President Richard Nixon), on December 21, 1970. In the memo, Chapin describes the purpose of Elvis' visit, 'to become a "Federal agent at large" to work against the drug problem by communicating with people of all ages.'

He then offers his suggestions as to how the meeting should take place and is clearly in favor of Elvis meeting with the President rather than fobbing him off with the Vice President.

H. R. Hadelman

The memo ends with Chapin's comment: 'In addition, if the President wants to meet with some bright young people outside of the Governent, Presley might be a perfect one to start with.' In handwriting by this comment, author unknown, are the words "You must be kidding." So I guess someone at the White House, perhaps Hadelman, wasn't quite so convinced of the benefits of having President Nixon meet with Elvis!

Note: Both Dwight Chapin and H. R. Hadelman were heavily involved in the subsequent Watergate scandal. Chapin was convicted and served nine months in prison as a result. Later in his career, Chapin worked for both Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush. Hadelman resigned as a result of the scandal and was later convicted and served 18 months in prison. On release, Hadelmen worked as a private businessman and died of cancer in 1993.

In Re Fairfield General Corp. v. Presley (1978)

Robert Vesco

Overview: In this relatively complex case, receiver files petition seeking to compel Elvis' Estate to proceed with purchase of a Boeing 707 airplane or pay damages. The court doesn't rule on the issues but orders the Chancery Court to make a set of determinations on remand in order to properly settle the case.

Robert Vesco, fugitive financier of questionable character, was also heavily involved in this case with interests in Fairfield General Corp. and International Controls Corp.

This case deals with some interesting issues related to Specific Performance, Judicial Sales, Receivership, etc.

Vernon Presley, as executor of Elvis' estate, appears as co-defendant.

RCA Records v. Hanks (1982)

Tom Paker ("The Colonel")

Overview: This case, concerning royalties owed by RCA, features Priscilla Presley as co-executor of Elvis' Estate, Blanchard E. Tual, Jr. as Lisa Marie Presley's Guardian Ad Litem, and Elvis' ex-manager, "Colonel" Tom Parker co-defendants.

RCA Records brought an interpleader action to determine who was the rightful owner of certain royalties due under its agreement with Elvis Presley.

Here, Defendant "Col." Tom Parker is seeking either to dismiss the interpleader action and the estate's cross-claims for lack of jurisdiction or to transfer the case to the federal district court in Nevada on the ground that this district is an improper venue.

The court denies Parker's motion to dismiss or transfer the interpleader action but grants his motion to dismiss the estate's cross-claims.

Dowling v. United States (1985)

Overview: In this criminal case that reached the United States Supreme Court, the Defendant, Dowling, was convicted in the U.S. District Court for mail fraud (United States v. Dowling, 1984), interstate transportation of stolen property, and conspiracy to transport stolen property interstate as a result of the sale and distribution of large quantities of bootleg recordings of Elvis Presley. The Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit affirmed, and the U.S. Supreme Court then heard the case on petition for writ of certiorari.

One issue faced the Supreme Court, whether the interstate transportation of bootleg recordings, in infringement of copyright, violated the National Stolen Property Act (18 U.S.C. 2314).

A majority of the Court held (with opinion by Justice Blackmun, dissent by Powell, joined by Burger and White) that infringement of copyright did not amount to "theft, conversion, or fraud."

Note: In this case, a brief was filed on behalf of the Recording Industry Association of America, Inc., as amicus curiae urging affirmance of the conviction.

North Carolina State Treasurer v. City of Asheville (1983)

Overview: The North Carolina State Treasurer brought an interpleader action as custodian of escheat fund for possession of money in the hands of the auditorium commission and city of Asheville representing unrefunded purchase price of tickets for concerts canceled because of Elvis' death.

Elvis' Estate intervened in the case as co-defendants. Jerry Weintraub, another intervenor, was the promoter for the Elvis concerts.

The court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment for the defendants and intervenors and held that the property was not abandoned or derelict.

Presley v. City of Memphis (1988)

Elvis Fans outside
Mid-South Coliseum

Overview: Elvis' Estate sues his hometown city of Memphis, et al., for recovery of proceeds from unrefunded ticket sales for concerts that were canceled because of his death.

In this case of first impression within Tennessee, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee considers issues of abandoned property and escheat and finds against the Estate.

When Elvis Met Nixon: The Documents (Part One) - Elvis' Letter to President Nixon

Overview: On December 21, 1970, Elvis visited President Richard Nixon at the White House in Washington, D.C. This meeting was initiated by Elvis when he wrote a 6-page letter to the President on American Airlines stationery, while on a red-eye flight to Washington, D.C. In this letter Elvis suggested that he be made a "Federal Agent-at-Large".

The letter was delivered by hand at an entrance gate to the Whitehouse at 6:30am. This letter was then delivered to Egil "Bud" Krogh, one of the President's aides, who was also an Elvis fan.

Krogh was instrumental in making the meeting happen and, with official approval, phoned the Washington Hotel, where Elvis was staying, and arranged the meeting with Elvis' staff member, Jerry Schilling.

The Elvis Presley FBI Files: Part 2 of 12

This is the second set of papers released from the FBI vault that involve Elvis containing 663 pages in total.

The first 51 pages are available in part one of this series. This set contains the next 25 pages of documents. Click here to see all of the FBI Files documents currently posted on PresLaw.info.

This set includes details regarding harassing phone calls, a letter to J. Edgar Hoover disapproving of Elvis (see Selected Highlights below), details of an extortion attempt, details of a threatened kidnap while Elvis was performing in Las Vegas as well as details of a death threat against Elvis.

Not Your Average Backyard Variety Swing v. Elvis Presley Enterprises (2009) (NZ Case)

The Elvis Cutaway

Overview: In this New Zealand case, Elvis Presley Enterprises is attempting to prevent registration of the trademark "Elvis Cutaway" by a New Zealand company, Shotover Canyon Swing.

Shotover is a company that offers cliff jumping experiences and the Elvis Cutaway is a particular jump style, described as "The king of all head rushes." (See http://www.canyonswing.co.nz/ and use the jumpstyles arrows to find The Elvis Cutaway.)

The Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand ruled against Elvis Presley Enterprises and allowed the trademark to be registered.

You have to ask yourself, why would Elvis Presley Enterprises be so concerned with challenging this trademark, in New Zealand, against a cliff jumping experience company? Don't they have better things to do with Elvis' legacy?

The Service Mark Alternative to the Right of Publicity: Estate of Presley v. Russen

Overview: This scholarly law review article discusses the Right of Publicity in light of the Estate of Elvis Presley v. Russen (1981) case.

Introduction: In recent years, the development of the doctrine of the right of publicity has gained significant attention from both courts and commentators. In essence, the doctrine protects the right of an individual, especially a public celebrity, to reap the benefits of the commercial use of his or her persona.

Citation: Patrick J. Heneghan and Herbert D. Wamsley, The Service Mark Alternative to the Right of Publicity: Estate of Presley v. Russen, 2 Loy. L.A. Ent. L. Rev. 113 (1982)

Estate of Elvis Presley v. Russen (1981)

Larry Seth in The "Big El" Show

Overview: Estate of Elvis Presley sues producer of Elvis impersonator show for trademark infringement, common-law unfair competition, and infringement of right of publicity.

This case has a very long opinion with 54 footnotes and discusses the issues in great depth. The key issues discussed include standing, laches and acquiescence, preliminary injunction standards, right of publicity & trademark infringement.

Note: Rob Russen was the producer of the "Big El" show, the actual performer was Larry Seth. See Larry Seth - The Big El.

Elvis Presley Enterprises v. Sid Shaw Elvisly Yours (1999) (U.K. Case)

Overview: In this case, the Court of Appeal is ruling on an appeal by Elvis Presley Enterprises, Inc. against the ruling of the High Court in the 1997 case.

Here, the Court of Appeal dismisses the appeal by Elvis Presley Enterprises, ruling in favor of Sid Shaw and Elvisly Yours, in contrast to the American cases (1987) and (1991).

Elvis Presley: Official Army Documents

Elvis was inducted into the U.S. Army in Memphis, Tennessee, on March 24, 1958. He then spent three days at the Fort Chaffee, Arkansas, Reception Station.

After nearly 3 years of service, he left active duty on March 5, 1960 while at Fort Dix, New Jersey. He received his formal discharge from the Army Reserve on March 23, 1964.

While serving in the Army, Elvis was a member of Company A, 2d Medium Tank Battalion, 37th Armor between March 28-September 17, 1958 and was stationed at Fort Hood, Texas. This is where he completed both his basic and advanced military training.

From October 1, 1958-March 2, 1960, Elvis was a member of the 1st Medium Tank Battalion, 3d Armor, based in Germany, mostly in the battalion's Headquarters Company in Friedberg, Germany.

When Elvis Met Nixon: The Photographs

Overview: These photographs were taken by an official White House photographer when Elvis met with President Nixon in the Oval Office on Dec 21, 1970.

For the full background story, see When Elvis Met Nixon on the Smithsonian web site and When Nixon Met Elvis on the National Archives web site.

Elvis Presley Enterprises v. Sid Shaw Elvisly Yours (1997) (U.K. Case)

Overview: This case is virtually identical to the U.S. case, but was held in the U.K. This time, with Elvisly Yours as plaintiff, the court ruled in favor of Elvisly Yours, unlike in the American case.

Elvis Presley Enterprises appealed the ruling of the High Court (below) but, in 1999, the Court of Appeals dismissed their appeal, ruling in favor of Sid Shaw and Elvisly Yours.

The Elvis Presley FBI Files: Part 1 of 12

This is the first set of papers released from the FBI vault that involve Elvis.

Though Elvis wasn't actually investigated by the FBI, he appears in several of their files, covering the years 1956-1980. These files contain information regarding extortion attempts that targeted Elvis (which were investigated by the FBI), correspondence from members of the public expressing concern over Elvis' stage performances and music (which make fascinating reading towards the end of the PDF file!), as well as letters related to Elvis' wish to meet J. Edgar Hoover, the first Director of the FBI.

In total, there are 663 pages of documents. This first set contains 51 pages.

Elvis Presley Enterprises v. Elvisly Yours (1991) (U.S. Case)

Overview: Assignee of trademarks of Elvis Presley sues U.K. company selling Elvis Memorabilia for trademark infringement, violations of Tennessee common law, and statutory rights of publicity. Court (1987) originally found in favor of plaintiff, EPE. Here, the Court of Appeals affirms the judgment of the District Court except with respect to the language of the injunction.

This case took place in the USA. Between 1997-1999, Elvis Presley Enterprises again sued Elvisly Yours, this time in the UK. In the UK case, the court ruled in favor of Elvisly Yours!

Elvis Presley Enterprises v. Elvisly Yours (1987) (U.S. Case)

Overview: Assignee of trademarks of Elvis Presley sues U.K. company selling Elvis Memorabilia for trademark infringement, violations of Tennessee common law, and statutory rights of publicity. Court finds in favor of plaintiff, EPE.

This case took place in the USA. Between 1997-1999, Elvis Presley Enterprises again sued Elvisly Yours, this time in the UK. In the UK case, the court ruled in favor of Elvisly Yours!

Elvis Case Sets Stage For First Amendment & Copyright Issues

By David Troedson
Source: Reuters/Billboard
December 19, 2003

The U.S. District Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held Nov. 6 that unauthorized use of extensive video footage of Elvis Presley for a "rockumentary" was not a fair use.

The case, Elvis Presley Enterprises v. Passport Videos, affects everyone who makes and watches video biographies, such as VH1's "Behind the Music," "E! True Hollywood Story" and A&E's "Biography."

The decision sets the stage for a potential collision of First Amendment and copyright issues, according to intellectual-property lawyers.

The ruling also suggests that makers of video biographies may have a harder time establishing a fair-use defense than print biographers.

Elvis Presley Enterprises, Leiber & Stoller and Sofa Entertainment Win Injunction in Federal Court

This article, originally published by Business Wire, gives a great overview of the Elvis Presley Enterprises v. Passport Video case and includes comments from Leiber and Stoller.

Alden v. Presley (1982)

Ginger with Elvis

Overview: Mother of Ginger Alden, Elvis' girlfriend at the time of his death (and the person who discovered his body), sues his estate for the enforcement of a gratuitous promise to pay off her mortgage, on the basis of detrimental reliance.

Last Will and Testament of Elvis A. Presley

This is a copy of the text of Elvis' last will and testament.

Click here to Buy a copy of Elvis' Will for only $1.00
 

---

Last Will And Testament Of Elvis A. Presley, Deceased

Filed August 22, 1977


Last Will And Testament of Elvis Presley


I, Elvis A. Presley, a resident and citizen of Shelby County, Tennessee, being of sound mind and disposing memory, do hereby make, publish and declare this instrument to be my last will and testament, hereby revoking any and all wills and codicils by me at any time heretofore made.

Valjo Music Publishing Corp. v. Elvis Presley Music (1957)

Johnny Otis

Overview: In this case, concerning the well-known Elvis song, Hound Dog, band leader Johnny Otis claims rights to 1/3 of the royalties as co-author of the song (in addition to Jerry Leiber and Mike Stoller) after Elvis' version proved so popular.

Even though Otis was entitled to 1/3 of the royalties from Willie Mae "Big Mama" Thornton's version, the court refused Otis' claim for royalties on the basis of co-authorship.

For further information see the related articles on The Discography and Wikipedia.

Elvis Presley Enterprises v. Capece (1998)

Overview: In this case, also known as "The Velvet Elvis Case," assignee and registrant of all trademarks, copyrights, and publicity rights belonging to the Elvis Presley estate sues operators of "The Velvet Elvis" restaurant for trademark infringement and dilution, and violation of its right of publicity in the name of Elvis Presley. In this opinion, the appellate court reverses and remands the ruling of the District Court.

Elvis Presley Enterprises v. Passport Video (2004)(Amended Dissent)

Overview: Various copyright holders sue video company over unauthorized use of copyrighted material in exhaustive 16-hour video documentary of Elvis' life.

Cocaine-Cola, the Velvet Elvis, and Anti-Barbie: Defending the Trademark and Publicity Rights to Cultural Icons

This lengthy article includes a section on Elvis and discusses the Russen and Capece cases.

Cocaine-Cola, the Velvet Elvis, and Anti-Barbie: Defending the Trademark and Publicity Rights to Cultural Icons, Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal Winter, 1998 (Harvard.edu)

Policing Elvis: Legal Action and the Shaping of Post-Mortem Celebrity Culture as Contested Space

This is a fairly detailed and scholary article outlining many of the post-mortem Elvis-related legal cases and how they have "shaped celebrity culture as contested space."

Download: Policing Elvis: Legal Action and the Shaping of Post-Mortem Celebrity Culture as Contested Space (PDF) David S. Wall, Entertainment Law, Vol.2, No.3, Autumn 2003, pp.35 – 69.

Elvis Presley Enterprises v. Capece (1996)

Overview: In this District Court case, also known as "The Velvet Elvis Case," assignee and registrant of all trademarks, copyrights, and publicity rights belonging to the Elvis Presley estate sues operators of "The Velvet Elvis" restaurant for trademark infringement and dilution, and violation of its right of publicity in the name of Elvis Presley. Here, the District Court finds for Capece, which was later reversed and remanded on appeal by the United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit(May 7, 1998).

Note: There is some wonderful Judicial Humor at the end of this opinion!

United States v. Dowling (1984)

Overview: In this criminal case (Bootleg Records Case) that reached the United States Supreme Court, the Defendant, Dowling, was convicted in the U.S. District Court for mail fraud, interstate transportation of stolen property, and conspiracy to transport stolen property interstate as a result of the sale and distribution of large quantities of bootleg recordings of Elvis Presley.

The Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit affirmed, and the U.S. Supreme Court then heard the case on petition for writ of certiorari (Dowling v. United States, 1985). One issue faced the Supreme Court, whether the interstate transportation of bootleg recordings, in infringement of copyright, violated the National Stolen Property Act (18 U.S.C. 2314). A majority of the Court held (with opinion by Justice Blackmun, dissent by Powell, joined by Burger and White) that infringement of copyright did not amount to "theft, conversion, or fraud."

Hawkins v. Graceland (2002)

Overview: Defendant, Graceland, moves to exclude the testimony of plaintiff's physician on the basis of violation of Rules 16 & 26 of the F.R.C.P. primarily concerning discovery and duty of disclosure.

State ex rel. Elvis Presley Intl. Meml. Found. v. Crowell (1987)

Overview: Elvis' Estate intervenes on behalf of defendant in case where a not-for-profit corporation (Elvis Presley Intl. Meml. Found.) was seeking to dissolve a similarly named corporation set up by the Estate (Elvis Presley Meml. Found.) and to prevent its use of Elvis' name. The case discusses the Right of Publicity as compared to the Right of Privacy, the Right of Publicity as Property and its descendibility, the defense of Laches, and the right of the Estate to intervene on behalf of the defendants.

Hoste v. Radio Corp. of America (1981)

This case features Vernon Presley, Executor of Elvis' Estate, as co-defendant.

Overview: Hoste, songwriter, seeks damages for copyright infringement, claiming Elvis performed a song almost identical to one that she wrote. Case deals with issues of summary judgment, statute of limitations, and laches defense.

Presley v. County of Nassau (1990)

Overview: Elvis' Estate sues County of Nassau et al. for recovery of proceeds from unrefunded ticket sales for a concert that was canceled because of his death.

Court grants defendants motion for summary judgment, and considers issues of abandoned and unclaimed property, finding against the Estate.

Elvis Presley Enterprises v. Passport Video (2003)

Overview: Various copyright holders sue video company over unauthorized use of copyrighted material in exhaustive 16-hour video documentary of Elvis' life.

Related Opinions & Articles

• Elvis Presley Enterprises v. Passport Video (2004) (Amended Dissent)
• Elvis Presley Enterprises, Leiber & Stoller and Sofa Entertainment Win Injunction in Federal Court, Business Wire (Oct 23, 2002)
• Elvis Case Sets Stage For First Amendment & Copyright Issues, Reuters/Billboard (Dec 19, 2003)

Presley v. Hanks (1989)

Deborah Presley Brando

This case, also known as the "Illegitimate Daughter Case", features Priscilla Presley, as co-executor of Elvis' Estate, as co-defendant.

Overview: Plaintiff, Deborah Delaine Presley, claiming to be the illegitimate daughter of Elvis, seeks her share of the Estate. The Court, after testimony from Priscilla et al., interprets the terms of his will as providing only for children born in wedlock.
Citation: 782 S.W.2d 482 (Tenn.Ct.App., Jul 20, 1989)

148 Investment Group v. Elvis Presley Enterprises (1995)

Overview: Plaintiffs sue Elvis Presley Enterprises for breach of contract concerning lease of gold piano for display at Graceland and profits obtained from its use in violation of contractual agreement.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.