Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 104 FSUPP2D 334 - Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Reimerdes

Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Reimerdes’s Empirical Analysis

2000

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
2
states following
May 2018
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 17 U.S.C. § 1201 (§ 103 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 138 · 28 U.S.C. § 144 · 28 U.S.C. § 455

Relies on Anderson v. Creighton · Liteky et al United States · Soberon v. United States · National Labor Relations Board v. Bildisco & Bildisco · Brewster v. Derwinski

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The frequency or extent of use of the discovery methods otherwise permitted under these rules and by any local rule shall be limited by the court if it determines that: (i) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; (ii) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity by discovery in the action to obtain the information sought; or (iii) the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, taking into account the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties’ resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation, and the importance of the proposed discovery in resolving the issues.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “For purposes of timeliness, the applicant is charged with knowledge of all facts “known or knowable, if true, with due diligence from the public record or otherwise.” Any other rule would allow a member of a law firm aware of facts that might lead to judicial disqualification to sit on the information, wait to see which way the wind appears to be blowing with the judge, and then to come forward in an effort to get rid of the judge if a colleague responsible for a case begins to perceive that the judge is unreceptive to the client’s position or even simply wants a delay.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.