Thomas M. Cooley Law School v. Kurzon Strauss, LLP

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that it is a “well-settled rule that ‘this court declines to entertain arguments not presented in the first instance to the district court’”
• explaining that we will exercise our discretion to entertain issues not raised only in exceptional cases or when application of the forfeiture rule produces a plain miscarriage of justice
• citing, Geiger v. Tower Auto., 579 F.3d 614, 620 (6th Cir. 2009)
• distinguishing Yee as based on “prudential limitations applicable to the Supreme Court’s certiorari jurisdiction” and “not altering] [the court’s] well-settled rule that ‘this court declines to entertain arguments not presented in the first instance to the district court’ ”
• “The actual malice standard arose from the Supreme Court’s recognition that the First Amendment limits the extent to which speech may be chilled by tort liability.”
• “It is well-settled that this court’s function is to review the case presented to the district court, rather than a better case fashioned after an unfavorable order.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).