26 Cited authorities

  1. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co. v. Campbell

    538 U.S. 408 (2003)   Cited 2,691 times   51 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an award of $145 million in punitive damages on a $1 million compensatory verdict violated due process
  2. BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore

    517 U.S. 559 (1996)   Cited 2,868 times   43 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a $2 million punitive damages award was "grossly excessive" and therefore exceeded the constitutional limit
  3. Feltner v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc.

    523 U.S. 340 (1998)   Cited 446 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Seventh Amendment includes a right to a jury determination of statutory damages under § 504(c) of the Copyright Act, but not addressing the fact that the Act limits damages to amounts between $500 and $20,000
  4. Bennis v. Michigan

    516 U.S. 442 (1996)   Cited 310 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[t]he government may not be required to compensate an owner for property which [the government] has ... lawfully acquired under the exercise of governmental authority other than the power of eminent domain"
  5. Woolworth Co. v. Contemporary Arts

    344 U.S. 228 (1952)   Cited 444 times
    Holding that whether trial court's "discretionary resort to estimation of statutory damages is just should be determined by taking into account ... the difficulties in the way of proof of either" actual damages or lost profits and that "[l]ack of adequate proof on either element would warrant resort to the statute in the discretion of the court."
  6. Columbia Pictures v. Krypton Broadcasting

    259 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 2001)   Cited 267 times
    Holding that district court properly applied these factors when evaluating fee request by prevailing plaintiff in copyright action
  7. Harmon v. Brucker

    355 U.S. 579 (1958)   Cited 224 times
    Holding that district court has "power to construe the statutes involved to determine whether the [Secretary of the Army] did exceed his powers," and that if he did, "judicial relief from this illegality would be available"
  8. Parker v. Time Warner Entertainment Co., L.P.

    331 F.3d 13 (2d Cir. 2003)   Cited 177 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding class certification should be assessed at the time of a hearing conducted after a certification motion has been filed
  9. U.S. v. Allen

    406 F.3d 940 (8th Cir. 2005)   Cited 113 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Fifth Amendment requires the indictment in prosecutions under the Act to include a mens rea factor
  10. Zomba Enterprises v. Panorama Records

    491 F.3d 574 (6th Cir. 2007)   Cited 98 times
    Holding "we may review such [copyright statutory damages] awards under St. Louis,I.M. S. Ry. Co. v. Williams, to ensure they comport with due process"
  11. Rule 59 - New Trial; Altering or Amending a Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 59   Cited 43,715 times   67 Legal Analyses
    Allowing a party to move to alter or amend a judgment "no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment"
  12. Section 504 - Remedies for infringement: Damages and profits

    17 U.S.C. § 504   Cited 3,616 times   56 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a copyright infringer may be liable for "the copyright owner's actual damages and any additional profits of the infringer"
  13. Section 501 - Infringement of copyright

    17 U.S.C. § 501   Cited 3,188 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Granting a cause of action to "[t]he legal or beneficial owner of an exclusive right under a copyright"
  14. Section 412 - Registration as prerequisite to certain remedies for infringement

    17 U.S.C. § 412   Cited 641 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting statutory damages and attorney's fees if the work is not registered before infringement commences, or within three months of the work's first publication
  15. Rule 5.1 - Constitutional Challenge to a Statute-Notice, Certification, and Intervention

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.1   Cited 623 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Permitting the state attorney general to intervene when a party files a paper "drawing into question the constitutionality" of a state statute