Netscape Communications Corp. v. VALUECLICK, INC.

How courts have described this case

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

• “Until the Federal Circuit further clarifies this issue, the safest course, in the circumstances, is to apply the Finnigan corroboration requirement broadly.”
• discussing the requirements for corroborating interested and disinterested witnesses’ testimony
• discussing the requirements for corroborating interested and disinterested witnesses’ testimony

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

10 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Lynn v. Monarch Recovery Management, Inc.
  D. Maryland· 2013-06-17· cited 125×
• Cohens v. Maryland Department of Human Resources
  D. Maryland· 2013-03-19· cited 35×
• Blanch v. Chubb & Sons, Inc.
  D. Maryland· 2015-08-28· cited 18×
• Touchcom, Inc. v. Bereskin & Parr
  E.D. Virginia· 2011-07-07· cited 17×
• Evans v. Trinity Industries, Inc.
  E.D. Virginia· 2015-11-25· cited 15×
• Martin v. Conner
  D. Maryland· 2012-03-02· cited 12×
• General Assurance of America, Inc. v. Overby-Seawell Co.
  E.D. Virginia· 2012-09-14· cited 7×
• Netscape Communications Corp. v. ValueClick, Inc.
  E.D. Virginia· 2010-04-15· cited 4×
• Bradford v. HSBC Mortgage Corp.
  E.D. Virginia· 2012-03-05· cited 3×
• W. Plastics, Inc. v. Dubose Strapping, Inc.
  E.D. North Carolina· 2018-09-25· cited 2×

Other cases named Netscape Communications Corp. v. VALUECLICK, INC.

3 other CourtListener records share this case name.

• Netscape Communications Corp. v. Valueclick, Inc.
  E.D. Virginia· 2010-01-29· cited 8×
• Netscape Communications Corp. v. ValueClick, Inc.
  E.D. Virginia· 2009-10-22· cited 7×
• Netscape Communications Corp. v. ValueClick, Inc.
  E.D. Virginia· 2010-04-15· cited 4×