All State & Fed.
Southern Industrial Contractors, LLC v. Neel-Schaffer, Inc. et al
REPLY to Response to Motion re Response in Opposition to Motion, to Reinstate Stay
Moses H. Cone Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp.
460 U.S. 1 (1983)
Cited 9,879 times
36 Legal Analyses
Holding that Will v. Calvert Fire Insurance did not overrule the “Colorado River test” because Will 's four dissenting Justices agreed with the concurring opinion that the test remained in effect
Colorado River Water Cons. Dist. v. U.S.
424 U.S. 800 (1976)
Cited 6,799 times
11 Legal Analyses
Holding that, in limited circumstances, federal courts should abstain from deciding a case when there are related proceedings pending in state court
Landis v. North American Co.
299 U.S. 248 (1936)
Cited 5,913 times
5 Legal Analyses
Holding that a decision to stay proceedings "calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance"
Brillhart v. Excess Ins. Co.
316 U.S. 491 (1942)
Cited 2,416 times
2 Legal Analyses
Holding federal courts "under no compulsion" to exercise jurisdiction over suits under Declaratory Judgments Act
Will v. Calvert Fire Ins. Co.
437 U.S. 655 (1978)
Cited 345 times
Holding that party moving for issuance of a writ of mandamus has the burden of showing its right to issuance of the writ
Black Sea Investment, Ltd. v. United Heritage Corp.
204 F.3d 647 (5th Cir. 2000)
Cited 168 times
Holding that when duplicative litigation exists, Colorado River prevents "piecemeal litigation, and the concomitant danger of inconsistent rulings with respect to a piece of property."
African Methodist Episcopal Church v. Lucien
756 F.3d 788 (5th Cir. 2014)
Cited 92 times
Holding that "any ambiguities of state law must be resolved" in favor of remand
Stewart v. Western Heritage Ins. Co.
438 F.3d 488 (5th Cir. 2006)
Cited 117 times
Holding the absence of any property at issue supports exercising federal jurisdiction
Evanston Ins. Co. v. Jimco, Inc.
844 F.2d 1185 (5th Cir. 1988)
Cited 169 times
Holding that 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c) does not bar a declaratory judgment action brought by an insurer seeking a declaration as to coverage—"the fact that an insurer is a 'direct' party does not make the litigation a 'direct action' "
American Guar. Liab. v. Anco Insulations
408 F.3d 248 (5th Cir. 2005)
Cited 70 times
Holding that because the state action does not include some claims asserted in the federal action, the cases are not parallel