39 Cited authorities

Buckhannon Board Care Home v. West Va. D.H.H.R
532 U.S. 598 (2001) Cited 3,802 times 17 Legal Analyses
Holding that the ordinary meaning of "prevailing party" in 42 U.S.C. § 3613(c) and 42 U.S.C. § 12205 allows attorneys’ fees only when there is a "material alteration of the legal relationship of the parties."
Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc.
510 U.S. 517 (1994) Cited 2,827 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
Christiansburg Garment Co. v. Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n
434 U.S. 412 (1978) Cited 3,649 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
Key Tronic Corp. v. United States
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
Marvel Characters, Inc. v. Simon
310 F.3d 280 (2d Cir. 2002) Cited 1,029 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that "a dismissal, with prejudice, arising out of a settlement agreement, operates as a final judgment for res judicata purposes"
Stewart v. Abend
495 U.S. 207 (1990) Cited 286 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that an author "may receive protection only for his original additions," not "elements ... already in the public domain"
Bryant v. Media Right Productions, Inc.
603 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 2010) Cited 261 times 6 Legal Analyses
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 ”
Love v. Associated Newspapers, Ltd.
611 F.3d 601 (9th Cir. 2010) Cited 252 times 2 Legal Analyses
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"
Mills Music, Inc. v. Snyder
469 U.S. 153 (1985) Cited 115 times 1 Legal Analyses
Recognizing the purpose of § 203 as to help authors terminate licenses, not limit their ability to do so
Singer Management Consultants, Inc. v. Milgram
650 F.3d 223 (3d Cir. 2011) Cited 136 times
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"
Section 505 - Remedies for infringement: Costs and attorney's fees
17 U.S.C. § 505 Cited 2,974 times 70 Legal Analyses
Granting the district court discretion to award attorney's fees to the prevailing party in copyright cases
Section 507 - Limitations on actions
17 U.S.C. § 507 Cited 830 times 64 Legal Analyses
Prohibiting copyright-infringement claims that are filed more than three years after they accrued
Section 304 - Duration of copyright: Subsisting copyrights
17 U.S.C. § 304 Cited 186 times 12 Legal Analyses
Extending the copyright term of works still under copyright in 1998 to 95 years

DC Comics v. Pacific Pictures Corporation et al

39 Cited authorities

Holding that the ordinary meaning of "prevailing party" in 42 U.S.C. § 3613(c) and 42 U.S.C. § 12205 allows attorneys’ fees only when there is a "material alteration of the legal relationship of the parties."

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

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

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 "a dismissal, with prejudice, arising out of a settlement agreement, operates as a final judgment for res judicata purposes"

Holding that an author "may receive protection only for his original additions," not "elements ... already in the public domain"

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"

Recognizing the purpose of § 203 as to help authors terminate licenses, not limit their ability to do so

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"

Granting the district court discretion to award attorney's fees to the prevailing party in copyright cases

Prohibiting copyright-infringement claims that are filed more than three years after they accrued

Extending the copyright term of works still under copyright in 1998 to 95 years