Mitchelson v. Kemmerer Coal Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• defining puffing as advertising that is “not deceptive for no one would rely on its exaggerated claims”
• applying a Bradley analysis and finding that new substantive provisions of § 43(a) of the Lanham Act should be applied retroactively to a pending case
• although the corporations involved in the suit would be public figures under the traditional Gertz analysis, the Third Circuit declined to make such a finding

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).