Flowers v. City of Harvey

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that an assignment substantially similar to Alaska Stock’s was sufficient to confer standing
• explaining that a “very late” disclosure was not substantially justified where initial non-disclosure was strategic choice
• excluding the agency agreements as a discovery, and only considering the copyright assignment agreements
• basing its standing decision, in part, on the fact that the plaintiff had engaged in a scheme to back-date assignments so that they would pre-date the filing of the complaint and had admitted that the only purpose for which it could use the assignment was to bring the lawsuit
• “Minden’s argument that [the infringer] itself lacks standing to challenge the validity of the copyright assignments is easily rejected.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).