The Oyez Project: Judicial Power Issues - Civil Procedure

Allegheny County v. Mashuda Co.

No details yet.

Arizona v. San Carlos Apache Tribe

No details yet.

Askew v. Hargrave

No details yet.

Best v. Humboldt Mining Co.

No details yet.

California v. Grace Brethren Church

No details yet.

Carey v. Sugar

No details yet.

Coit Independence Joint Venture v. Fslic

No details yet.

Colorado River Water Cons. Dist. v. U.S.

No details yet.

County Of Imperial v. Munoz

No details yet.

Darby v. Cisneros, Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development

No details yet.

Daubert Et Ux., Individually And As Guardians Ad Litem For Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

No details yet.

Deakins v. Monaghan

No details yet.

Doud v. Hodge

No details yet.

England v. Medical Examiners

No details yet.

Fair Assessment In Real Estate Assn. v. Mcnary

No details yet.

Franchise Tax Board Of California v. Alcan Aluminium

No details yet.

Gibson v. Berryhill

No details yet.

Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Teamsters

No details yet.

Grubbs v. General Electric Credit Corp.

No details yet.

Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff

After extensive hearings in the mid-1960s, the Hawaii legislature discovered that while Federal and State governments owned nearly 49 percent of the land in Hawaii, another 47 percent was owned by only 72 private landowners. To combat this concentration of ownership, the legislature enacted the Land Reform Act of 1967. The Act adopted a method of redistribution in which title in real property could be taken from lessors and transferred to lessees. Frank E. Midkiff, a landholder, challenged the Act.

Iowa Mutual Ins. Co. v. Laplante

No details yet.

Lehman Brothers v. Schein

No details yet.

Leiter Minerals, Inc., v. United States

No details yet.

Louisiana P. & L. Co. v. Thibodaux City

No details yet.

Marrese v. American Academy Of Ortho. Surgeons

No details yet.

Martin v. Creasy

No details yet.

Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Epstein

In 1990, Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. made a tender offer for the common stock of MCA, Inc., a Delaware corporation, which resulted in Matsushita's acquisition of MCA. Subsequently, two lawsuits followed. First, a class action filed in Delaware, alleged that, among other things, Matsushita and MCA conspired violating Delaware law. The second suit, filed in federal court, alleged that Matsushita's tender offer violated certain Securities and Exchange Commission Rules promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, which confers exclusive jurisdiction upon the federal courts in such suits. After Matsushita won the federal case, and while it was on appeal, the parties to the state action reached a settlement. The class-action settlement stated that class members who did not opt out of the class would waive all claims in connection with the tender offer, including those asserted in the federal action. As members of both state and federal plaintiff classes, who neither opted out of the settlement class nor appeared to contest the settlement or the representation of the class, pursued the federal appeal, Matsushita argued that the Delaware judgment was a bar to further prosecution under the Full Faith and Credit Act.

Mccarthy v. Madigan

No details yet.

Mcneil v. United States

No details yet.

Metlakatla Indians v. Egan

No details yet.

Moore v. Sims

No details yet.

New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc. v. New Orleans

No details yet.

Parsons Steel, Inc. v. First Alabama Bank

No details yet.

Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco Inc.

No details yet.

Quackenbush v. Allstate Insurance

The California Insurance Commissioner filed a state court action against Allstate Insurance Co. seeking damages for Allstate's alleged breach of reinsurance agreements in an effort to gather the assets of the defunct Mission Insurance companies. Allstate removed the action to federal court on diversity grounds and filed a motion to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act. The Commissioner sought to remand the case to state court, arguing that the court should abstain from hearing the case, under Burford v. Sun Oil Co., because its resolution might interfere with California's regulation of insurance insolvencies and liquidations. The District Court agreed, concluded that an abstention was appropriate, and remanded the case to state court without ruling on Allstate's arbitration motion. After determining the appealability of the District Court's remand order, the Court of Appeals vacated the decision and ordered the case sent to arbitration. The court held that abstention was inappropriate in this damages action because a Burford abstention is limited to equitable actions.

Reetz v. Bozanich

No details yet.

Rivet v. Regions Bank of Louisiana

In 1983, a partnership mortgaged its interest in the Louisiana equivalent of a leasehold estate on a parcel of real property in New Orleans to Regions Bank of Louisiana. The partnership then granted a second mortgage to Mary Anna Rivet, Minna Ree Winer, Edmond G. Miranne, and Edmond G. Miranne, Jr. Later, the partnership filed for bankruptcy. The Bankruptcy Court approved the sale of the estate to the Bank, which sold the property. Rivet filed suit in Louisiana state court, alleging that the transfer of the property without satisfying their rights under the second mortgage violated state law. The Bank removed the action to federal court, contending that federal-question jurisdiction existed because the prior Bankruptcy Court orders extinguished Rivet's rights. Denying Rivet's motion to remand, the District Court granted the Bank summary judgment. In affirming, the Court of Appeals concluded that removal is proper where a plaintiff's state cause of action is completely precluded by a prior federal judgment on a federal question.

Rosewell v. Lasalle National Bank

No details yet.

Trainor v. Hernandez

No details yet.

Tully v. Griffin, Inc.

No details yet.

United Gas Co. v. Ideal Cement Co.

No details yet.

Willingham v. Morgan

No details yet.