546 U.S. 500 (2006) Cited 7,942 times 27 Legal Analyses
Holding that Title VII's numerosity requirement is nonjurisdictional even though it serves the important policy goal of “spar[ing] very small businesses from Title VII liability”
Holding that the district court was well within its discretion in denying Rule 59(e) motion that raised an issue for the first time after entry of summary judgment
Holding that, where students challenged schools' admissions policies but during the course of litigation became ineligible to apply to those schools, the students' claims were moot
Holding that a software development company whose original action had alleged infringement of its copyright through defendants' possession of its source code was barred from bringing a later action that alleged copyright infringement based on the use of its source code
Holding judicial proceedings in another country initiated by a private party were not the sort of sovereign acts that would require deference under the act of state doctrine
Holding that allegations within the U.S. for alleged activities entirely abroad cannot state a claim for copyright infringement under the Copyright Act
Holding six-month delay from the filing of the complaint to the motion for preliminary injunction did not bar relief where non-movant was "unable to demonstrate that any harm resulted from the delay because much of the delay during this period was due to extensions requested by [nonmovant and] these extensions were granted to allow for settlement negotiations"
17 U.S.C. § 106 Cited 3,775 times 108 Legal Analyses
Granting the owners of copyrights in “literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works” the exclusive right “to display the copyrighted work publicly”