Pinkerton v. Bailey

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that title and cover of the DVD for the film at issue did not explicitly mislead where back cover of film displayed defendant’s name and identified the film as a “MARK ATKINS” film
• indicating that “cease-and-desist letters . . . refer[ring] to a[] contractual or other economic relationship between plaintiff and any third party” could “establish . . . the . . . intent element[] of the interference claim[]”
• indicating that “cease-and-desist letters . . . refer[ring] to a[] contractual or other economic relationship between plaintiff and any third party” could “establish . . . the . . . intent element[] of the interference claim[]”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).