Daniels v. Andrews

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that “this 28 factor is limited to instances of overt misconduct, which may not exist in every case”
• noting that “Snap–On’s conduct could be justified by market pressures”
• “The fourth factor is used to ensure that any damages enhancement is not out of proportion with the defendant’s size and the scope of its infringing versus non-infringing sales.”
• “After reviewing the parties’ disagreements about each other’s litigation choices, the most it can say is that the case was hard-fought and involved no more than ordinary strategic decisions (and blunders) on both sides.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).