Gladstone v. Hillel

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that fees may be allowed if not strictly incurred as part of litigation
• recognizing that fees may be allowed if not strictly incurred as part of litigation
• upholding award despite defendants' argument it was improper because it was based on time and expense incurred in preparation for litigation
• upholding award despite defendants’ argument it was improper because it was based on time and expense incurred in preparation for litigation
• “The court held ‘[accounting expenses] ... were incurred in preparation for litigation and not in pursuit of property.’ ”
• defendant’s pattern of wrongfully using plaintiffs molds warranted finding sufficient threat of future violation

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

11 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Bihun v. AT & T Information Systems, Inc.
  California Court of Appeal· 1993-02-24· cited 74×
• Schuldies v. Millar
  South Dakota Supreme Court· 1996-09-25· cited 51×
• Balboa Insurance v. Trans Global Equities
  California Court of Appeal· 1990-03-21· cited 42×
• Broadwater v. Old Republic Surety
  Utah Supreme Court· 1993-06-04· cited 27×
• Harwood State Bank v. Charon
  North Dakota Supreme Court· 1991-02-22· cited 26×
• State v. Smith
  Washington Supreme Court· 1990-10-25· cited 17×
• Kabehie v. Zoland
  California Court of Appeal· 2002-09-26· cited 11×
• State v. Patterson
  Montana Supreme Court· 2016-11-15· cited 11×
• Sun Microsystems, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.
  N.D. California· 2000-01-24· cited 7×
• Serova v. Sony Music Entertainment
  California Supreme Court· 2022-08-18
• Santa Clara Valley Water Dist. v. Eisenberg
  California Court of Appeal· 2025-12-31

Cites

19 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises
  Supreme Court· 1985-05-20· cited 1,191×
• Mazer v. Stein
  Supreme Court· 1954-04-12· cited 560×
• Darrell Taylor, D/B/A Darrell Taylor Topographic Charts v. Joseph B. Meirick, D/B/A Lakes Illustrated
  Seventh Circuit· 1983-07-07· cited 243×
• Herbert Rosenthal Jewelry Corp. v. Edward and Lucy Kalpakian, Etc.
  Ninth Circuit· 1971-07-07· cited 134×
• Frank Oddo v. Jack W. Ries, Mme Publications, Mme Publishing Company and Material Movement Enterprises
  Ninth Circuit· 1984-06-19· cited 134×
• Mayer v. Josiah Wedgwood & Sons, Ltd.
  S.D. New York· 1985-02-07· cited 109×
• Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises
  Second Circuit· 1983-11-17· cited 90×
• Andrew F. Ehat v. Jerald Tanner and Sandra Tanner, Dba Modern Microfilm Company
  Tenth Circuit· 1985-12-30· cited 59×
• Brignoli v. Balch Hardy and Scheinman, Inc.
  S.D. New York· 1986-09-30· cited 46×
• Interpart Corporation v. Imos Italia, Vitaloni, S.P.A. And Torino Industries, Ltd.
  Federal Circuit· 1985-11-14· cited 29×
• Gemveto Jewelry Company, Inc. v. Jeff Cooper Incorporated and Jeff Cooper, Individually
  Federal Circuit· 1986-09-05· cited 28×
• Ojala v. Bohlin
  California Court of Appeal· 1960-02-24· cited 25×
• Trifari, Krussman & Fishel, Inc. v. B. Steinberg-Kaslo Co.
  S.D. New York· 1956-07-11· cited 21×
• Ronald Litoff Ltd. v. American Express Co.
  S.D. New York· 1985-11-05· cited 17×
• Rankin v. Satir
  California Court of Appeal· 1946-08-06· cited 16×
• Security-First National Bank of Los Angeles v. Lutz
  Ninth Circuit· 1963-08-19· cited 15×
• Haskel Engineering & Supply Co. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.
  California Court of Appeal· 1978-03-08· cited 12×
• Haines v. Parra
  California Court of Appeal· 1987-08-10· cited 11×
• Oakes v. Suelynn Corp.
  California Court of Appeal· 1972-03-22· cited 7×