Opposition In Opposition To re: MOTION for Attorney Fees / Amended Notice of Motion and Motion for Attorneys' Fees Under 17 U.S.C. Section 505 559 MOTION for Attorney Fees / Amended Notice of Motion and Motion for Attorneys' Fees Under 17 U.S.C. Section 505 559 562
510 U.S. 517 (1994) Cited 2,841 times 30 Legal Analyses
Holding that under the Copyright Act fee-shifting statute, 17 U.S.C. § 505, defendants and plaintiffs are to be treated the same, contrary to the Court's interpretation of § 1988
434 U.S. 412 (1978) Cited 3,659 times 33 Legal Analyses
Holding that for a defendant to recoup attorneys fees under § 706(k) of Title VII, a court must find that the plaintiff litigated his or her claim beyond the point where it became “frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless” or where plaintiff acted in bad faith
511 U.S. 809 (1994) Cited 592 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that “the award of monetary damages ... to fund a future clean-up of ... property violate CERCLA” because § 113(g) provides that under § 107 the remedy for future response costs is a declaratory judgment
Holding that the “question of whether a work constitutes a ‘compilation’ for the purposes of statutory damages ... is a mixed question of law and fact” and therefore reviewed “ de novo ”
Holding that there was no conflict between the law of California and England because "[n]one of the parties remaining in this suit is a citizen of California" and the injurious conduct in the suit "occurred almost exclusively in the United Kingdom and Ireland"
Holding that plaintiff was not a prevailing party under § 1988 where the district court had entered a TRO and defendant then voluntarily changed its position, thereby "moot[ing] the case at the preliminary injunction hearing"