§Why CasetextPricing

Cepheid, Inc. et al v. Abbott Laboratories

REPLY

27 Cited authorities

  1. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson

    444 U.S. 286 (1980)   Cited 10,829 times   32 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an Oklahoma court could not exercise personal jurisdiction over a car retailer when the retailer's only connection to Oklahoma was the fact that a car sold in New York became involved in an accident in Oklahoma

  2. Brillhart v. Excess Ins. Co.

    316 U.S. 491 (1942)   Cited 2,860 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding federal courts "under no compulsion" to exercise jurisdiction over suits under Declaratory Judgments Act

  3. Government Employees Insurance Co. v. Dizol

    133 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir. 1998)   Cited 788 times
    Holding that a suit seeking declaratory judgment must first pass constitutional and statutory muster as presenting a case-or-controversy before the court exercises its prudential discretion

  4. American Title Ins. Co. v. Lacelaw Corp.

    861 F.2d 224 (9th Cir. 1988)   Cited 465 times
    Holding that "statements of fact contained in a brief may be considered admissions of the party in the discretion of the district court"

  5. Gospel Missions of Am. v. City of Los Angeles

    328 F.3d 548 (9th Cir. 2003)   Cited 204 times
    Holding that the party bearing the burden of establishing jurisdiction may not invoke issue preclusion to "force [courts] to pretend to exercise" jurisdiction where it may not otherwise exist

  6. Chamberlain v. Allstate Ins. Co.

    931 F.2d 1361 (9th Cir. 1991)   Cited 218 times
    Holding that retaining federal jurisdiction was proper because the district court already had jurisdiction over plaintiff's removed bad faith lawsuit when the defendant insurer filed its counterclaim for declaratory relief; thus, by adjudicating the declaratory relief counterclaim, the district court avoided piecemeal litigation

  7. Golden Eagle Insurance Co. v. Travelers Co.

    103 F.3d 750 (9th Cir. 1996)   Cited 151 times
    Holding that the district court's error in exercising jurisdiction was harmless error because the "court properly applied the relevant state law to the undisputed material facts and came up with the right answer"

  8. Application Group, Inc. v. Hunter Group, Inc.

    61 Cal.App.4th 881 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 119 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding former employee's claim for declaration concerning rights under covenant not to compete "were and are entirely moot" where one-year term in covenant had expired and there was no evidence plaintiff was interested in seeking further employment with defendant "any time in the near future"

  9. Z-Line Designs, Inc. v. Bell'O International LLC

    218 F.R.D. 663 (N.D. Cal. 2003)   Cited 79 times
    Finding that plaintiff filed in anticipation of litigation where letter provided specific, concrete indication that litigation was imminent

  10. Keown v. Tudor Insurance Company

    621 F. Supp. 2d 1025 (D. Haw. 2008)   Cited 47 times
    Holding that "the concern for needless determination of state law issues, on its own, provides just reason for the court to decline jurisdiction over this action"

  11. Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 12   Cited 345,805 times   922 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

  12. Section 132 - Creation and composition of district courts

    28 U.S.C. § 132   Cited 127 times
    Creating district courts

  13. Section 9-11-24 - Intervention

    Ga. Code § 9-11-24   Cited 102 times

    (a)Intervention of right. Upon timely application anyone shall be permitted to intervene in an action: (1) When a statute confers an unconditional right to intervene; or (2) When the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject matter of the action and he is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede his ability to protect that interest, unless the applicant's interest is adequately represented by existing

  14. Rule 24.01 - Intervention as of Right

    Tenn. R. Civ. P. 24.01   Cited 53 times

    Upon timely motion any person shall be permitted to intervene in an action: (1) when a statute confers an unconditional right to intervene; or (2) when the movant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action and the movant is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant's ability to protect that interest, unless the movant's interest is adequately represented by existing parties; or (3) by stipulation