Louisville & Nashville R. R. v. City of Louisville

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that during a premotion conference, the district court “determined that [the defendants] were [procedurally] precluded from filing a second motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6)”
• noting that plaintiff identified a number of license limits that the defendant allegedly exceeded
• identifying the date of infringement, and the basis upon which plaintiff believes infringement to have occurred, suffices to satisfy fourth Kelly prong
• “To the extent that Plaintiff seeks to assert copyright infringement claims for works not listed in the [chart], the Court . . . dismisses that portion of the [complaint].”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).