Solers, Inc. v. Doe

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that it was error to dismiss a claim for interference with prospective business relationships when the plaintiff pleaded general harm to its reputation and “damage” to its prospective business opportunities
• noting that First Amendment claim can be considered \[w]hen presented with a motion to quash (or to enforce) a subpoena\
• noting that First Amendment claim can be considered “[w]hen presented with a motion to quash (or to enforce) a subpoena”
• analyzing the complaint under Super. Ct. Civ. R. 8(a), while not needing to decide whether to follow the plausibility standard
• adopting a test that “closely resembles the ‘summary judgment’ standard articulated in Cahill”
• “Procedural labels such as prima facie or ‘summary judgment’ may prove misleading, but the test we now adopt closely resembles the ‘summary judgment’ standard articulated in Cahill”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).