S & K v. General Cinema Beverages of Washington, D.C., Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the exercise of personal jurisdiction over defendant under N.Y. C.P.L.R. 301 was warranted because defendant entered licensing agreements with companies in New York “and deriv[ed] substantial revenue benefit from, them”
• holding that the 9 exercise of personal jurisdiction over defendant under N.Y. C.P.L.R. 301 was warranted because 10 defendant entered licensing agreements with companies in New York “and deriv[ed] substantial 11 revenue benefit from, them”
• holding that the 9 exercise of personal jurisdiction over defendant under N.Y. C.P.L.R. 301 was warranted because 10 defendant entered licensing agreements with companies in New York “and deriv[ed] substantial 11 revenue benefit from, them”
• explaining that “inconvenience can be lessened by allowing [witnesses] to testify by video”
• denying a motion to seal because the ostensibly private information had been reported in multiple articles
• \Any countervailing privacy interest of [the party seeking sealing] cannot defeat the strong presumption of public disclosure where the material it seeks to seal is already in the public domain.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).