Michael Jordan v. Jewel Food Stores, Incorporat

How courts have described this case

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

• “Current doctrine holds Defendants argue that the exemption applies because “Jeen-yuhs” shows Love interacting with Kanye West, a “future superstar” who attracts a lot of attention. See Defs.’ Mem. in Support of Mtn. to Dismiss, at 13 (Dckt. No. 12
• “It is true that each of the statutory and common-law claims alleged here has a ‘commercial’ element in one form or another, but it’s not clear that the Supreme Court’s commercial-speech doctrine should be used to define this term in each cause of action.”
• “It is true that each of the statutory and common-law claims alleged here has a ‘commercial’ element in one form or another, but it’s not clear that the Supreme Court’s commercial-speech doctrine should be used to define this term in each cause of action.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).