Daniel v. Blankenship

How courts have described this case

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

• “In opposing Octane’s renewed motion for attorney’s fees, Icon produced a declaration by Icon’s general counsel [] that provided limited information about a pre-suit analysis[.]”
• “The absence of a pre-filing analysis, when combined with [plaintiff’s] exceptionally weak litigation position, leads to the inference that the pre-filing investigation resulted in a conclusion that probable success on the merits was remote.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).