Body Glove IP Holdings LP v. On Five Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that a court “need not accept as true legal conclusions or unwarranted factual inferences.”
• rejecting plaintiffs’ claims that vaccine mandate implicated their liberty interests in bodily integrity and autonomy
• standing conferred by disciplinary consequences employees faced when they chose not to comply with employer's vaccine mandate
• affirming the dismissal of a complaint challenging a COVID-19 vaccine mandate because, as in Jacobson, the policy “further[ed] a legitimate government interest of protecting public health” and thus passed rational basis review
• “The EUA statute’s relevant language . . . addresses the interaction between the medical provider and the person receiving the vaccine . . . . ”
• “The statute is meant to ensure patients’ consent to the pharmaceutical they are receiving, but this does not mean that MSU cannot require vaccination as a term of employment.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).