515 U.S. 277 (1995) Cited 4,360 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that in declaratory judgment actions, district courts have “greater” discretion to abstain than under Colorado River's “exceptional circumstances” test
Holding that "the forum of the first-filed case is favored" and that such deference to the first-filed case may not be set aside absent a "sound reason that would make it unjust or inefficient to continue the first-filed action"
Holding that plaintiff who prevailed on patent infringement and Lanham Act claims arising from same operative facts, i.e., infringement of patent, could not have double recovery of damages
Using Rule 13 to conclude that ongoing suit in another district to recover on certain notes and suit filed in district court here challenging entire transaction — of which notes were part — were "of a single controversy"
Affirming dismissal of a second-filed action to enforce a contract where the court of the first-filed action was "capable of making determination" regarding the contract's interpretation
Explaining litigants "should not be permitted to make an end run around [one federal court's] judgment and the appellate process by collaterally attacking th[e] . . . judgment in another forum
353 F. Supp. 2d 614 (M.D.N.C. 2005) Cited 12 times
Applying the first-to-file rule to an action for declaratory judgment and dismissing the later-filed patent infringement suit filed in the same district