American Can Company v. Ishwar Mansukhani, D/B/A Brand Associates, and Ruth Brand, D/B/A Brand Associates, and Brand M, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that ex parte TROs may be appropriate where “the identity of the adverse party is unknown or because a known party cannot be located in time for a hearing”
• holding that a party cannot prevent others from using public information and general knowledge
• holding district court 11 abused its discretion in granting ex parte temporary restraining order “when there was no 12 valid reason for proceeding ex parte and by disregarding the strict procedural requirements 13 of Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b
• district court may not “disregard[] the strict procedural requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b) for the issuance of such ex parte orders” because, even though Rule 65(b
• “Ex parte temporary restraining orders are most familiar to courts where notice to the adversary party is impossible either because the identity of the adverse party is unknown or because a known party cannot be located in time for a hearing.”
• district court abused its discretion in 27 granting ex parte temporary restraining order “when there was no valid reason for proceeding ex parte and by disregarding the strict procedural requirements of Fed. R. Civ. 28 P. 65(b) for the issuance of such ex parte orders”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).