Stone v. City of Lexington

How courts have described this case

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

• “regardless of how [plaintiff] has fash- ioned its claim, its objection is not to client solicitation per se, but rather to its effect on [plaintiff’s] future revenue,” and its interest in “preventing [defendant] from siphoning its future profits” is “eminently compensable”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).