green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
24.8 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1982 ·
…there are situations where a federal court may defer to a parallel state proceeding, even when the result will be to relegate decision of questions of federal law over which the district court has jurisdiction to a state forum.
at p. 1233
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1979 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1979
2002
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
GRAYMOR PROPERTIES LLC v. BATTERY PROPERTIES, INC.
calvert iv
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Microsoftware Computer Systems, Inc. v. Ontel Corporation
(2×)
there are situations where a federal court may defer to a parallel state proceeding, even when the result will be to relegate decision of questions of federal law over which the district court has jurisdiction to a state forum.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(PC) Bailey v. Clawson
Reinsurance Co., 600 F.2d 1228, 1233 (7th Cir. 1979)); see also Sanzaro v. 11 Ardiente Homeowners Ass’n LLC, 513 F. App’x 646, 647 (9th Cir. 2013) (“Dismissal of 12 [plaintiffs’] FHA claim as duplicative of a state court action was improper because the other 13 action is not in the same court as the present action and does not include [plaintiffs’] FHA claim.” 14 (citing Adams, 487 F.3d at 688-89); Dzhanikyan v. Liberty Mutual Ins.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Hobbs v. Compass Group
Reinsurance Co., 600 F.2d 1228, 1233 (7th Cir. 1979)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
McNeal v. Watson
Reinsurance Co., 600 F.2d 1228, 1233 (7th Cir. 1979).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
HURSTON v. INDIANA GAMING COMPANY LLC
Reinsurance Co., 600 F.2d 1228, 1233 (7th Cir. 1979)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Jerry Cox v. Mariposa County
Co., 600 F.2d 1228, 1233 (7th Cir.1979)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Abanukam v. Acuff
Before dismissing a case as duplicative, “the district judge should consider any special factors counseling for or against the exercise of jurisdiction in the case before him.” Serlin, 3 F.3d at 224 (citing Calvert Fire Insurance Co. v. American Mutual Reinsurance Co., 600 F.2d 1228, 1234 (7th Cir. 1979)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Cash Biz, LP, Redwood Financial, LLC, Cash Zone, LLC Dba Cash Biz v. Hiawatha Henry, Addie Harris, Montray Norris, and Roosevelt Coleman Jr.
Calvert Fire Insurance Co. v. American Mutual Reinsurance Co., 600 F.2d 1228, 1234-1236 (CA7 1979), aff’g 459 F.Supp. 859 (ND Ill. 1978).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Lea v. United States
Co., 600 F.2d 1228, 1233 (7th Cir.1979); Walton v. Eaton Corp., 563 F.2d 66, 70 (3d Cir.1977).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Manning v. Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith, Inc.
Reinsurance Co., 600 F.2d 1228, 1231 (7th Cir.1979) (§ 27 does not prevent state courts from hearing Exchange Act defenses); Gold v. Blinder, Robinson & Co., 580 F.Supp. 50, 54 (S.D.N.Y.1984) (§ 27 “does not bar a plaintiff from pursuing at its option cognate remedies based entirely upon state law”); McMahon Chevrolet, Inc. v. Davis, 392 F.Supp. 322, 324-25 (S.D.Tex.1975) (“This Court is of the opinion that the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts under [§ 27] is like the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts under ... the Natural Gas Act ... in that such jurisdiction d…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Copello v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals Inc.
Allen concedes that her FLSA claims here duplicate those in Ruggeri, but she cites Calvert Fire Insurance Co. v. American Mutual Reinsurance Co., 600 F.2d 1228, 1234 (7th Cir.1979), for the proposition that a district court presented with a duplicative case “should consider any special factors counseling for or against the exercise of jurisdiction.” Allen notes that if her FLSA claims are dismissed, she still will pursue her IMWL claim here and Boehringer still will have to defend FLSA claims both here and in Ruggeri.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Harrison v. XTO ENERGY, INC.
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
Reinsurance Co., 600 F.2d 1228, 1235 (7th Cir.1979).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Adrian v. Mesirow Financial Structured Settlements, LLC
Reinsurance Co., 600 F.2d 1228, 1233 (2d Cir.1979).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Medical Assur. Co., Inc. v. Weinberger
Reinsurance Co., 600 F.2d 1228, 1229, n. 1 (7th Cir.1979)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. v. Jakks Pacific, Inc.
Reinsurance Co., 600 F.2d 1228, 1234 (7th Cir.1979). 21 .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Lippitt v. Raymond James Financial Services, Inc.
Co. v. American Mutual Reinsurance Co., 600 F.2d 1228, 1235, n. 16 (7th Cir.1979).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Lippitt v. Raymond James Financial Services, Inc.
Co. v. American Mutual Reinsurance Co., 600 F.2d 1228, 1235, n. 16 (7th Cir.1979).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Exxon Research and Engineering Co. v. Industrial Risk Insurers
Co. v. American Mutual Reinsurance Co., 600 F. 2d 1228, 1234 (7th Cir.1979).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bank One, N.A. v. Coates
Co. v. American Mutual Reinsurance Co., 600 F.2d 1228, 1234 (7th Cir.1979) ("Under Colorado River, it was proper for Judge Will to consider the vexatious nature of the federal suit as well as any other factors bearing on the propriety of continuing the stay.1').
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
FPC CORP. v. Uniplast, Inc.
Co., 600 F.2d 1228, 1233-34 (7th Cir.1979) (in deciding whether to defer to another federal court, court may take into account “desirability of avoiding piecemeal litigation”).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
62 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1207, 62 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 42,551 Howard R. Serlin v. Arthur Andersen & Company, Arthur Andersen & Company, S.C., Harry v. Ruffalo
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
Reinsurance Co., 600 F.2d 1228, 1233 (7th Cir.1979)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Serlin v. Arthur Andersen & Co.
Reinsurance Co., 600 F.2d 1228, 1233 (7th Cir.1979)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Avi Nakash, Joe Nakash, and Ralph Nakash v. Georges Marciano, Maurice Marciano, Armand Marciano, Paul Marciano
Co., 600 F.2d 1228, 1233 (7th Cir.1979).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
James R. Laduke v. Burlington Northern Railroad Company
Reinsurance Co., 600 F.2d 1228, 1234 (7th Cir.1979).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Norman Rosser, as of the Estate of Evelyn Rosser, and Norman Rosser, Individually v. Chrysler Corporation, Acco Babcock, Inc., and John Koepele
Reinsurance Co., 600 F.2d 1228, 1233 (7th Cir.1979).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Schiller v. Packaging Store, Inc.
Reinsurance Co., 600 F.2d 1228, 1234 (7th Cir. 1979).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
DeVona v. City of Providence Through Napolitano
Co. v. American Mutual Reinsurance Co., 600 F.2d 1228, 1233 (7th Cir.1979), the Seventh Circuit, in interpreting Colorado River, noted that “the Supreme Court made it clear that the circumstances justifying federal court deferral to a state proceeding are still considerably more limited than the circumstances permitting federal court deferral to another federal court.” Despite suggesting that it was applying Colorado River, the Court proceeded to apply a “balancing test” imposing on the district court the obligation of making a “carefully considered judgment taking into account both …
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Boston & Maine Corp. v. United Transportation Union Sheetmetal Workers International Ass'n
Calvert Fire Insurance Co. v. American Mutual Reinsurance Co., 600 F.2d 1228, 1233-34 (7th Cir. 1979).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Lumen Construction, Inc. v. Brant Construction Company, Inc.
Co. v. American Mutual Reinsurance Co., 600 F.2d 1228, 1234 (7th Cir.1979), noted with approval in Moses H.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Lumen Construction, Inc. v. Brant Construction Co.
Co. v. American Mutual Reinsurance Co., 600 F.2d 1228, 1234 (7th Cir.1979), noted with approval in Moses H.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Community Consolidated School District No. 59 v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
The Supreme Court has cautioned against unseemly forum shopping, San Carlos, 103 S.Ct. at 3214 , and while the District’s behavior is not obviously vexatious, its filing of a federal suit that cannot determine the rights of the interested parties as fully as an already pending state action does appear to be the type of conduct subject to scrutiny under the Seventh Circuit’s reasoning in Calvert Fire Insurance Co. v. American Mutual Reinsurance Co., 600 F.2d 1228, 1234 (7th Cir.1979).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
COMMUN. CONSOL. SCH. DIST. v. US Fidelity & Guar.
The Supreme Court has cautioned against unseemly forum shopping, San Carlos, 103 S.Ct. at 3214 , and while the District's behavior is not obviously vexatious, its filing of a federal suit that cannot determine the rights of the interested parties as fully as an already pending state action does appear to be the type of conduct subject to scrutiny under the Seventh Circuit's reasoning in Calvert Fire Insurance Co. v. American Mutual Reinsurance Co., 600 F.2d 1228, 1234 (7th Cir.1979).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
North American Van Lines, Inc. v. State Board of Tax Commissioners
Co. v. American Mutual Reinsurance Co., 600 F.2d 1228, 1233 (7th Cir.1979) (footnote omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ridge Gold Standard Liquors, Inc. v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Reinsurance Co., 600 F.2d 1228, 1233 (7th Cir.1979); Complaint of Bankers Trust Co. v. Chatterjee, 636 F.2d 37, 40 (3d Cir.1980). 1 The irrationality of tolerating duplicative litigation in the federal system is all the more pronounced where, as here, two federal judges sitting on the same district court are, if defendants’ characterization proves true, devoting scarce judicial resources to the adjudication of the same charges by essentially the same plaintiffs against the same defendants.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Green v. Indal, Inc.
This list is not exhaustive, the district court’s task is to exercise discretion based on “weighing ... a combination of factors.” Calvert, supra, 600 F.2d at 1234.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp.
Calvert Fire Insurance Co. v. American Mutual Reinsurance Co., 600 F. 2d 1228, 1234-1236 (CA7 1979), aff'g 459 F. Supp. 859 (ND Ill. 1978).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Voktas, Inc., a Greek Corporation v. Central Soya Company, Inc., an Indiana Corporation, and Central Soya International, Inc., a Panamanian Corporation v. Southeastern Minerals, Inc., Third-Party
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
The above list is not exhaustive, and the district judge should consider any special factors counselling for or against the exercise of jurisdiction in the case before him. 14 600 F.2d at 1233-34 (footnotes omitted).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Voktas, Inc. v. Central Soya Co.
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
The above list is not exhaustive, and the district judge should consider any special factors counselling for or against the exercise of jurisdiction in the case before him. 600 F.2d at 1233-34 (footnotes omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Merritt v. Colonial Foods, Inc.
Defendants contend this Court’s authority to enter such a stay was confirmed by the plurality opinion in Will v. Calvert Fire Insurance Co., 437 U.S. 655 , 98 S.Ct. 2552 , 57 L.Ed.2d 504 (1978), and by the subsequent consideration of that case by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Calvert Fire Insurance Co. v. American Mutual Reinsurance Co., 600 F.2d 1228, 1233 (7th Cir. 1979).
cited
Cited "see"
Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Hop-On International Corp.
See Calvert Fire Insurance Co. v. American Mutual Reinsurance Co., 600 F.2d 1228 , 1230 n. 2, 1233 (7th Cir.1979); 17 C.
discussed
Cited "see"
Evans Transportation Company v. Scullin Steel Company
(2×)
See 600 F.2d 1228 , 1234 (7th Cir.1979).
discussed
Cited "see"
Christensen Hatch Farms, Inc. v. Peavey Co.
Duffy v. Currier, 291 F.Supp. 810, 813 (D.Minn.1968); Donnell v. Swenson, 258 F.Supp. 317, 318 (D.Mo.1966), aff’d on other grounds, 382 F.2d 248 (8th Cir. 1967); see Timmreck v. United States, 577 F.2d 372 , 374 n.6 (6th Cir. 1978), rev’d on other grounds 441 U.S. 780 , 99 S.Ct. 2085 , 60 L.Ed.2d 634 , on remand, 600 F.2d 1228 (1979).
discussed
Cited "see"
Menzel v. County Utilities Corp.
See Calvert Fire Insurance Co. v. American Mutual Reinsurance Co., 600 F.2d 1228 (7th Cir. 1979) (federal district court action may be stayed pending determination of a parallel state court action); Nature Conservancy v. Machipongo Club, Inc., 579 F.2d 873, 876 (4th Cir. 1978) (federal district court ordered to stay judgment pending final decision by Supreme Court of Virginia in a parallel proceeding); Maryland Casualty Co. v. Boyle, 123 F.2d 558, 564 (4th Cir. 1941) (where prior action involving same parties and same issues has been filed in a court with concurrent jurisdiction, and decision …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Shaw v. Williams
(2×)
See also Calvert Fire Insurance Co. v. American Mutual Reinsurance Co., 600 F.2d 1228, 1233 (7th Cir.1979) (deferral of federal action prevents duplication of judicial effort in two separate court systems).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Jan M. Sexton Salmi v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
See, e.g., Timmreck v. United States, 577 F.2d 372 , 376 n. 15 (6th Cir.1978), rev’d on other grounds, 441 U.S. 780 , 99 S.Ct. 2085 , 60 L.Ed.2d 634 , on remand, 600 F.2d 1228 (6th Cir.1979).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Russ' Kwik Car Wash, Inc. Clean Cars, Inc. v. Marathon Petroleum Company Gastown, Inc. Emro Marketing Company
(2×)
See, e.g., Timmreck v. United States, 577 F.2d 372 , 376 n. 15 (6th Cir.1978), rev’d on other grounds, 441 U.S. 780 , 99 S.Ct. 2085 , 60 L.Ed.2d 634 , on remand, 600 F.2d 1228 (6th Cir.1979); Hutchins v. Woodard, 730 F.2d 953, 957 (4th Cir.), stay vacated, 464 U.S. 377 , 104 S.Ct. 752 , 78 L.Ed.2d 541 (1984); LeVick v. Skaggs Companies, 701 F.2d 777, 778 (9th Cir.1983); NLRB v. Datapoint Corp., 642 F.2d 123, 129 (5th Cir.1981).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Petitioner,
v.
Charles TIMMRECK, Respondent
v.
Charles TIMMRECK, Respondent
77-1572.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Jul 16, 1979.
600 F.2d 1228
Kenneth M. Mogill, Mogill, Bush, Posner & Weiss, Detroit, Mich., for respondent., James K. Robinson, U. S. Atty., Detroit, Mich., Mervyn Hamburg, Sidney M. Glazer, App. Section, Crim.Div., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
Celebrezze, Lively, En-Gel.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
ORDER
This cause is on remand from the Supreme Court for further proceedings in conformity with its opinion reversing this court’s judgment in Timmreck v. United States, 577 F.2d 372 (6th Cir. 1978). See United States v. Timmreck, - U.S. -, 99 S.Ct. 2085, 60 L.Ed.2d 634 (1979).
In light of the Supreme Court’s disposition in this cause, it is hereby ordered that the judgment of the district court be, and it hereby is, affirmed.