Eureka Water Co. v. Nestle Waters North America, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding a theory advanced by appellant was forfeited because “this contention is not stated sufficiently clearly in Eureka’s opening brief on cross-appeal to preserve the issue”
• finding that purified bottled water qualified as goods

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).