13 Cited authorities

Colorado River Water Cons. Dist. v. U.S.
424 U.S. 800 (1976) Cited 8,167 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding that, in limited circumstances, federal courts should abstain from deciding a case when there are related proceedings pending in state court
Romine v. Compuserve Corp.
160 F.3d 337 (6th Cir. 1998) Cited 309 times
Holding that where in the state court depositions were taken, discovery requests and thousands of documents were exchanged, the state court has placed the case on its complex administrative track, and defendants have moved for summary judgment, and the federal action were still in the initial pleading stage, the "progress" factor weighed strongly in favor of deferring to the state court
Penn Co. v. Pennsylvania
294 U.S. 189 (1935) Cited 399 times
Holding federal court had jurisdiction over first-filed federal suit
Madruga v. Superior Court
346 U.S. 556 (1954) Cited 202 times
Holding that an admiralty action was permissible in diversity where "it does not affect the interests of others in the world at large, as it would if this were a proceeding in rem to enforce a lien"
U.S. v. Bank of New York Co.
296 U.S. 463 (1936) Cited 234 times
Holding first-filed state cases took precedence over later-filed federal cases
Pennsylvania v. Williams
294 U.S. 176 (1935) Cited 234 times
Holding that the district court erred in exercising jurisdiction over a shareholder's complaint seeking the liquidation of a Pennsylvania corporation, because state statutes established a mechanism for the shareholder to achieve the same results
McGinness v. U.S.
90 F.3d 143 (6th Cir. 1996) Cited 107 times
Holding that "[t]he United States, as a sovereign, cannot be sued for damages without its prior consent, and the terms of its consent define the court's subject matter jurisdiction."
Harkin v. Brundage
276 U.S. 36 (1928) Cited 190 times
In Harkin v. Brundage, 276 U.S. 36, 48 S.Ct. 268, 72 L.Ed. 457, the court held that jurisdiction of the Federal court [(D.C.) 13 F.2d 617] was invoked through the practice of fraud by the moving litigant and therefore must be surrendered.
In re Chimenti
79 F.3d 534 (6th Cir. 1996) Cited 53 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding that “admiralty and maritime claims are not removable to federal court unless there exists some independent basis, such as diversity of the parties, for federal jurisdiction.”
Park National Bank v. Cattani
2010 Ohio 1291 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010) Cited 17 times
In Cattani, Park National Bank filed a complaint to foreclose on a mortgage on real property consisting of a gas station, convenience store and fast-food restaurant.

Williamson et al v. Recovery Limited Partnership et al

13 Cited authorities

Holding that, in limited circumstances, federal courts should abstain from deciding a case when there are related proceedings pending in state court

Holding federal court had jurisdiction over first-filed federal suit

Holding that an admiralty action was permissible in diversity where "it does not affect the interests of others in the world at large, as it would if this were a proceeding in rem to enforce a lien"

Holding first-filed state cases took precedence over later-filed federal cases

Holding that the district court erred in exercising jurisdiction over a shareholder's complaint seeking the liquidation of a Pennsylvania corporation, because state statutes established a mechanism for the shareholder to achieve the same results

Holding that "[t]he United States, as a sovereign, cannot be sued for damages without its prior consent, and the terms of its consent define the court's subject matter jurisdiction."

In Harkin v. Brundage, 276 U.S. 36, 48 S.Ct. 268, 72 L.Ed. 457, the court held that jurisdiction of the Federal court [(D.C.) 13 F.2d 617] was invoked through the practice of fraud by the moving litigant and therefore must be surrendered.

Finding that “admiralty and maritime claims are not removable to federal court unless there exists some independent basis, such as diversity of the parties, for federal jurisdiction.”

In Cattani, Park National Bank filed a complaint to foreclose on a mortgage on real property consisting of a gas station, convenience store and fast-food restaurant.