16 Cited authorities

Hickman v. Taylor
329 U.S. 495 (1947) Cited 6,510 times 31 Legal Analyses
Holding in the context of the work product privilege that the adversary system requires a party's attorney be permitted to “assemble information, sift what he considers to be the relevant from the irrelevant facts, prepare his legal theories and plan his strategy without undue and needless interference”
Williams v. United States
503 U.S. 193 (1992) Cited 852 times
Holding that when "the reviewing court concludes, on the record as a whole, . . . the error did not affect the district court's selection of the sentence imposed," the "error was harmless" and remand is inappropriate
United States v. Gonzales
520 U.S. 1 (1997) Cited 620 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that "any other term of imprisonment" includes terms imposed by state courts
United States v. James
478 U.S. 597 (1986) Cited 230 times
Finding legislative history did not merit a departure from the plain language of the statute
Central Green Co. v. United States
531 U.S. 425 (2001) Cited 139 times
Rejecting the concept that immunity attached "solely because [the Madera Canal] is a branch of the Central Valley Project"
In re Suarez
400 B.R. 732 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2009) Cited 64 times
Applying Cohen to affirm Bankruptcy Court's determination under § 523 that attorneys' fees and costs were nondischargeable, even though there was no award of compensatory damages
Prentice v. North Am. Title Guaranty Corp., Alameda Division
59 Cal.2d 618 (Cal. 1963) Cited 217 times
Holding that where a vendor of land was required by the negligence of a third party to bring a quiet title suit to protect its interests, the vendor was entitled to recover from the third party the expenditures and attorney's fees paid in the quiet title suit
Gotro v. R B Realty Group
69 F.3d 1485 (9th Cir. 1995) Cited 75 times
Holding that "by choosing the words 'any actual expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred' Congress did not intend to remove the discretion of the district court to award fees in, such as contingent fee or pro bono cases, where the client has not actually 'incurred' the obligation to pay her attorneys' fees"
Morrison v. C.I.R
565 F.3d 658 (9th Cir. 2009) Cited 38 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding a prevailing taxpayer can incur fees under § 7430 if the taxpayer assumes either: " a noncontingent obligation to repay the fees advanced on his behalf at some later time; or a contingent obligation to repay the fees in the event of their eventual recovery"
Ed A. Wilson, Inc. v. General Services Administration
126 F.3d 1406 (Fed. Cir. 1997) Cited 52 times
Holding that the petitioner "incurred" fees and expenses paid on his behalf by a third party even though the petitioner's obligation to repay that third party was contingent on a recovery of those fees
Section 1447 - Procedure after removal generally
28 U.S.C. § 1447 Cited 33,278 times 110 Legal Analyses
Holding that with exceptions not relevant here, "[a]n order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise"
Section 362 - Automatic stay
11 U.S.C. § 362 Cited 29,530 times 175 Legal Analyses
Concluding that cause exists to lift the stay because no bankruptcy purpose would be served by keeping the stay in place
Section 3742 - Review of a sentence
18 U.S.C. § 3742 Cited 10,932 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that the appellate court may reverse a sentence that is too low
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"

Lenz v. Universal Music Group Inc. et al

16 Cited authorities

Holding that when "the reviewing court concludes, on the record as a whole, . . . the error did not affect the district court's selection of the sentence imposed," the "error was harmless" and remand is inappropriate

Holding that "any other term of imprisonment" includes terms imposed by state courts

Finding legislative history did not merit a departure from the plain language of the statute

Rejecting the concept that immunity attached "solely because [the Madera Canal] is a branch of the Central Valley Project"

Applying Cohen to affirm Bankruptcy Court's determination under § 523 that attorneys' fees and costs were nondischargeable, even though there was no award of compensatory damages

Holding that where a vendor of land was required by the negligence of a third party to bring a quiet title suit to protect its interests, the vendor was entitled to recover from the third party the expenditures and attorney's fees paid in the quiet title suit

Holding a prevailing taxpayer can incur fees under § 7430 if the taxpayer assumes either: " a noncontingent obligation to repay the fees advanced on his behalf at some later time; or a contingent obligation to repay the fees in the event of their eventual recovery"

Holding that the petitioner "incurred" fees and expenses paid on his behalf by a third party even though the petitioner's obligation to repay that third party was contingent on a recovery of those fees

Holding that with exceptions not relevant here, "[a]n order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise"

Concluding that cause exists to lift the stay because no bankruptcy purpose would be served by keeping the stay in place

Holding that the appellate court may reverse a sentence that is too low

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