Stuart R. Meyers v. Brooks Shoe Inc. And Wolverine World Wide, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• defendant has not demonstrated prejudice where evidence suggests that defendant would have pursued the same course of conduct even if plaintiff had filed suit sooner
• defendant’s claim of prejudice unconvincing when evidence suggested that defendant’s course of conduct was unaffected by plaintiff’s activities
• “[T]he affidavit says that documents relating to the allegedly infringing shoes have been lost or destroyed, but general statements like that are not sufficient.”
• “If there is a real dispute about a material fact or factual inference, summary judgment is inappropriate; the factual dispute should be reserved for trial.”
• affidavit that documents were lost and employees left company was insufficient without showing that former employees’ testimony was important to defense or why they could not be subpoenaed if needed
• “Conclusory averments [of business expansion] are not sufficient to show prejudice.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).