Bond v. Blum

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that pro se attorneys are not entitled to attorneys’ fees
• reviewing as a factual finding the district court’s determination of \the reasonableness of the [plaintiff’s] legal posi- 12 W. VA. HIGHLANDS CONSERVANCY v. NORTON tions\ in awarding attorney fees to copyright defendants
• endorsing a totality-of-the-circumstances approach, without according special significance to any factor
• awarding counsel fees to an LLC represented by one of its members
• “A fair-use analysis bears relevance only when a challenged use violates a right protected by the Copyright Act.”
• “[I]n-house counsel representing the corporation for whom they work may also be awarded attorneys fees.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).