Louis H. West v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that a party was not a “prevailing party” and therefore could not obtain attorney’s fees under the Lanham Act because the case was dismissed without prejudice
• noting that the district court “expressly found the motion [for voluntary dismissal was] made in good faith”
• affirming district court’s decision to grant motion to voluntarily dismiss case without prejudice when plaintiff did not have resources to pursue discovery and trial, although issue on appeal was whether dismissal should be with or without prejudice
• party voluntarily dismissed by court order under Rule 41(a)(2) is not “prevailing party” under Lanham Act for recovery of attorney’s fees
• “The abuse-of-discretion standard means the district ‘court has a range of choice, and that its decision will not be disturbed as long as it stays within that range and is not influenced by any mistake of law.’”
• considering issue of fees under Lanham Act

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).