15 Cited authorities

Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises
471 U.S. 539 (1985) Cited 1,252 times 15 Legal Analyses
Holding that if a new work "supersede the use of the original," it is probably not a fair use
Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, Inc.
464 U.S. 417 (1984) Cited 992 times 28 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”
Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.
510 U.S. 569 (1994) Cited 662 times 71 Legal Analyses
Holding that “[i]t was error for the Court of Appeals to conclude that the commercial nature of [a secondary work] rendered it presumptively unfair”
Lopez v. Heckler
713 F.2d 1432 (9th Cir. 1983) Cited 283 times
Holding that all a claimant must do to satisfy the presentment requirement is to “specifically present the claim that his benefits should not be terminated”
Abbassi v. INS
143 F.3d 513 (9th Cir. 1998) Cited 110 times
In Abbassi v. INS, 143 F.3d 513 (9th Cir. 1998), we decided to apply "the same standards employed by district courts in evaluating motions for preliminary injunctive relief to those stay requests.
United States Rubber Company v. Wright
359 F.2d 784 (9th Cir. 1966) Cited 245 times
Holding that certification should be granted "only in extraordinary cases where decision of an interlocutory appeal might avoid protracted and expensive litigation."
Black v. Cutter Laboratories
351 U.S. 292 (1956) Cited 85 times
In Black, the Supreme Court examined a California state court opinion, which reversed an arbitration board decision reinstating an individual dismissed from her employment because she was an active member of the Communist party and had falsified her employment application.
Rossi v. Motion Picture Ass'n of America Inc.
391 F.3d 1000 (9th Cir. 2004) Cited 62 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that "courts interpreting ... federal statutes have traditionally interpreted ‘good faith’ to encompass a subjective standard"
Shurance v. Planning Control Intern., Inc.
839 F.2d 1347 (9th Cir. 1988) Cited 74 times
Finding this factor not met where interlocutory appeal would have the effect of delaying trial
Filtrol Corporation v. Kelleher
467 F.2d 242 (9th Cir. 1973) Cited 85 times
Recognizing that a district court has discretion to stay proceedings pending the outcome of a separate action to "promote economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants" (quoting Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936))
Section 1292 - Interlocutory decisions
28 U.S.C. § 1292 Cited 22,918 times 203 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 628 times 187 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

15 Cited authorities

Holding that if a new work "supersede the use of the original," it is probably not a fair use

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 “[i]t was error for the Court of Appeals to conclude that the commercial nature of [a secondary work] rendered it presumptively unfair”

Holding that all a claimant must do to satisfy the presentment requirement is to “specifically present the claim that his benefits should not be terminated”

In Abbassi v. INS, 143 F.3d 513 (9th Cir. 1998), we decided to apply "the same standards employed by district courts in evaluating motions for preliminary injunctive relief to those stay requests.

Holding that certification should be granted "only in extraordinary cases where decision of an interlocutory appeal might avoid protracted and expensive litigation."

In Black, the Supreme Court examined a California state court opinion, which reversed an arbitration board decision reinstating an individual dismissed from her employment because she was an active member of the Communist party and had falsified her employment application.

Holding that "courts interpreting ... federal statutes have traditionally interpreted ‘good faith’ to encompass a subjective standard"

Finding this factor not met where interlocutory appeal would have the effect of delaying trial

Recognizing that a district court has discretion to stay proceedings pending the outcome of a separate action to "promote economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants" (quoting Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936))

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"