Bel v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

How courts have described this case

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

• “Over-scrutinizing the persuasive value of evidence proffered on rebuttal would violate Rule 301 by shifting the burden of persuasion, not just the burden of production.”
• “Here, the District Court again appropriately referenced the Lapp factors for consumer confusion, described them as “closely balanced,” and found that [the defendant] had rebutted the presumption by producing evidence of a sophisticated consumer class.”
• noting the analysis must be “aimed” at “consumer confusion”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).