27 Cited authorities

Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore
439 U.S. 322 (1979) Cited 4,248 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that district courts have discretion to refuse to apply offensive non-mutual collateral estoppel against a defendant if such an application of the doctrine would be unfair
Coopers Lybrand v. Livesay
437 U.S. 463 (1978) Cited 2,817 times 32 Legal Analyses
Holding interlocutory orders appealable if they: "conclusively determine the disputed question, resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action, and be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment."
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.
545 U.S. 913 (2005) Cited 788 times 31 Legal Analyses
Holding that “one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright ... is liable”
Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, Inc.
464 U.S. 417 (1984) Cited 970 times 27 Legal Analyses
Holding identical copying of videotapes under unique circumstances of case “[did] not have its ordinary effect of militating against a finding of fair use”
Firestone Tire Rubber Co. v. Risjord
449 U.S. 368 (1981) Cited 992 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that orders refusing to disqualify counsel are not immediately appealable because there is usually an adequate remedy after final judgment—the court of appeals can vacate the judgment and order a new trial
Flanagan v. United States
465 U.S. 259 (1984) Cited 735 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction to review order disqualifying counsel before defendant had been tried and sentenced
Richardson-Merrell Inc. v. Koller
472 U.S. 424 (1985) Cited 562 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding an order disqualifying counsel in a civil case did not qualify for immediate appeal under the collateral order doctrine
A M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.
239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001) Cited 740 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that Napster could not invoke § 1008 as a defense to copyright infringement claims because its technology did not fit within the AHRA’s definitions
United States v. Hollywood Motor Car Co.
458 U.S. 263 (1982) Cited 257 times
Holding that court of appeals lacked jurisdiction to hear interlocutory appeal of order denying motion to dismiss for prosecutorial vindictiveness
McFarlin v. Conseco Services, LLC
381 F.3d 1251 (11th Cir. 2004) Cited 411 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that certification is proper "only in exceptional cases where a decision of the appeal may avoid protracted and expensive litigation . . . and there is serious doubt as to how [a dispositive question] should be decided"
Section 1291 - Final decisions of district courts
28 U.S.C. § 1291 Cited 89,115 times 139 Legal Analyses
Granting jurisdiction to the courts of appeals from final decisions of federal district courts "except where a direct review may be had in the Supreme Court"
Section 1292 - Interlocutory decisions
28 U.S.C. § 1292 Cited 22,367 times 196 Legal Analyses
Granting appellate jurisdiction over certain types of interlocutory orders
Section 512 - Limitations on liability relating to material online
17 U.S.C. § 512 Cited 575 times 186 Legal Analyses
Denying the safe harbor if the service provider receives "a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity"

Disney Enterprises, Inc. et al v. Hotfile Corp. et al

27 Cited authorities

Holding that district courts have discretion to refuse to apply offensive non-mutual collateral estoppel against a defendant if such an application of the doctrine would be unfair

Holding interlocutory orders appealable if they: "conclusively determine the disputed question, resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action, and be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment."

Holding that “one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright ... is liable”

Holding identical copying of videotapes under unique circumstances of case “[did] not have its ordinary effect of militating against a finding of fair use”

Holding that orders refusing to disqualify counsel are not immediately appealable because there is usually an adequate remedy after final judgment—the court of appeals can vacate the judgment and order a new trial

Holding that the Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction to review order disqualifying counsel before defendant had been tried and sentenced

Holding an order disqualifying counsel in a civil case did not qualify for immediate appeal under the collateral order doctrine

Holding that Napster could not invoke § 1008 as a defense to copyright infringement claims because its technology did not fit within the AHRA’s definitions

Holding that court of appeals lacked jurisdiction to hear interlocutory appeal of order denying motion to dismiss for prosecutorial vindictiveness

Holding that certification is proper "only in exceptional cases where a decision of the appeal may avoid protracted and expensive litigation . . . and there is serious doubt as to how [a dispositive question] should be decided"

Granting jurisdiction to the courts of appeals from final decisions of federal district courts "except where a direct review may be had in the Supreme Court"

Granting appellate jurisdiction over certain types of interlocutory orders

Denying the safe harbor if the service provider receives "a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity"