Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Streeter

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that a defendant’s failure to answer is 7 likely not a result of excusable neglect if the defendant is served properly
• finding that a defendant’s failure to answer is likely not a result of excusable neglect 17 if the defendant is served properly
• finding 19 that a defendant’s failure to answer is likely not a result of excusable neglect if the 20 defendant is served properly
• finding 19 that a defendant’s failure to answer is likely not a result of excusable neglect if the 20 defendant is served properly
• finding it unlikely that a personally served 21 defendant failing to answer and a resulting default were the result of excusable neglect
• finding defendant had 19 committed copyright infringement by distributing without authorization copies of the 20 copyrighted materials on the internet

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).