Case Citator › BV Engineering v. University of California, Los Angeles

BV Engineering v. University of California, Los Angeles

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Good law
Court
Ninth Circuit
Citation
858 F.2d 1394
Decided
Confirmed treatments
0
Flagged citations read
29 of 29
Citing cases (total)
29
Good law
Every flagged citation to this case has been read, and none of them overrules, limits, or questions it. BV Engineering v. University of California, Los Angeles remains good law after complete review. All 29 flagged citations have been read, and none adversely treats its holding that the Copyright Act of 1976 did not abrogate state immunity from federal copyright suits.
More on how this was screened

State, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Southpointe Pharmacy noted a 1990 amendment that attempted to change that result, but did not decide that BV Engineering had been superseded; Allen v. Cooper later held the amendment's attempted abrogation invalid. No adverse treatment is listed below.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

29 later cases cite BV Engineering v. University of California, Los Angeles; 29 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on BV Engineering v. University of California, Los Angeles?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

No reviewed court has overruled or limited this case.

Every one of the 29 flagged citations was read, and each turned out to be something other than adverse treatment: a routine application, a party's argument the court rejected, or the case itself discussing older law. That reading is the finding this page exists to report.

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads BV Engineering v. University of California, Los Angeles and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace