46 Cited authorities

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett
477 U.S. 317 (1986) Cited 216,931 times 40 Legal Analyses
Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"
Neder v. United States
527 U.S. 1 (1999) Cited 4,967 times 31 Legal Analyses
Holding that the failure to submit an uncontested element of an offense to a jury may be harmless
Associated General Contractors v. Carpenters
459 U.S. 519 (1983) Cited 5,055 times 34 Legal Analyses
Holding that a union lacked standing to sue for injuries passed on to it by intermediaries
Reed Elsevier v. Muchnick
559 U.S. 154 (2010) Cited 1,136 times 15 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Copyright Act's requirement that copyright holders register their works before suing for infringement "is a precondition to filing a claim that does not restrict a federal court's subject-matter jurisdiction"
Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & Indem. Co.
553 U.S. 639 (2008) Cited 1,111 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that bidders at a county tax-lien auction plausibly alleged RICO proximate causation when they lost to a competing bidder who lied to the county about complying with the auction's rules
Crawford v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson Cnty.
555 U.S. 271 (2009) Cited 973 times 22 Legal Analyses
Holding that protected opposition activity need not be "active" or "consistent"
Holmes v. Securities Investor Protection Corp.
503 U.S. 258 (1992) Cited 1,670 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC) could not recover under RICO for stock-manipulation scheme that bankrupted broker-dealers, triggering a statutory requirement that SIPC meet the broker-dealers' obligations to their customers
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”
Watt v. Alaska
451 U.S. 259 (1981) Cited 608 times
Holding that agency's interpretation of amendment that was contemporaneous with amendment's passage was entitled to considerably more deference than agency's current, inconsistent interpretation
Rule 56 - Summary Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Cited 329,772 times 158 Legal Analyses
Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
Section 106 - Exclusive rights in copyrighted works
17 U.S.C. § 106 Cited 3,758 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”
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"

Viacom International, Inc. et al v. Youtube, Inc. et al

46 Cited authorities

Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"

Holding that the failure to submit an uncontested element of an offense to a jury may be harmless

Holding that a union lacked standing to sue for injuries passed on to it by intermediaries

Holding that the Copyright Act's requirement that copyright holders register their works before suing for infringement "is a precondition to filing a claim that does not restrict a federal court's subject-matter jurisdiction"

Holding that bidders at a county tax-lien auction plausibly alleged RICO proximate causation when they lost to a competing bidder who lied to the county about complying with the auction's rules

Holding that protected opposition activity need not be "active" or "consistent"

Holding that the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC) could not recover under RICO for stock-manipulation scheme that bankrupted broker-dealers, triggering a statutory requirement that SIPC meet the broker-dealers' obligations to their customers

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 agency's interpretation of amendment that was contemporaneous with amendment's passage was entitled to considerably more deference than agency's current, inconsistent interpretation

Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

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”

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