Gentry v. City of Fort Lauderdale

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that district court should attempt to apportion Lanham Act-related fees “unless the court finds the claims are so inextricably intertwined that even an estimated adjustment would be meaningless”
• noting that we have interpreted the “exceptional circumstances” requirement “rather narrowly” in our decisions
• noting that we have interpreted the “exceptional circumstances” requirement “rather narrowly” in our decisions
• holding the court must attempt to apportion fees between Lanham Act claim 14 and other claims “unless the court finds the claims are so inextricably intertwined that even an 15 estimated adjustment would be meaningless”
• stating, in relation to a Lanham Act claim, that “apportionment or an attempt 21 at apportionment is required unless the court finds the claims are so inextricably intertwined that 22 even an estimated adjustment would be meaningless”
• prevailing party may recover fees for both Lanham Act and non- Lanham Act claims if “the Lanham Act claims and non-Lanham Act claims are so intertwined that it is impossible to differentiate between” them (emphasis in original) (internal quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).