In Re Hot-Hed Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that attorneys’ fees are “not intended to remedy injury caused by the alleged offense, but [are] instead an incidental cost of litigation”
• finding lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the “boiler-plate” request for fees “as allowed by law” was insufficient to present a federal question
• “[A]ny doubt as to the propriety of removal should be resolved in favor of remand.”
• removal to federal court was not warranted in trademark infringement action based on plaintiff’s request for attorneys’ fees
• “A federal question exists ‘if there appears on the face of the complaint some substantial, disputed question of federal law.’” (quoting Carpenter v. Wichita Falls Indep. Sch. Dist., 44 F.3d 362, 366 (5th Cir. 1995))
• “A federal question exists ‘if there appears on the face of the complaint some substantial, disputed question of federal law.’” (quoting Carpenter v. Wichita Falls Indep. Sch. Dist., 44 F.3d 362, 366 (5th Cir. 1995))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).