green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
63.1 score
“although the district court 'approved' the stipulations to amend and dismiss , such approval cannot be said to involve meaningful consideration or participation by the district court inasmuch as the parties were entitled to do so without leave of the court.”
Treatment trajectory · 2003 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2003
2014
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 41 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Limited
Romoland School Dist v. Inland
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
Co. v. Dastar Corp., 318 F.3d 881, 888-89 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that the James exception must be narrowly construed because “[a]ny other interpretation . . . would undermine [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 54(b) and add uncertainty to the final judgment rule”).
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Walker v. State of Arizona
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
although the district court 'approved' the stipulations to amend and dismiss , such approval cannot be said to involve meaningful consideration or participation by the district court inasmuch as the parties were entitled to do so without leave of the court.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
State of Alaska v. Haaland
ermitting jurisdiction without a clear indication of finality would confuse the parties and the public, possibly leading to premature or untimely appeals.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Western Watersheds Project v. Debra Haaland
Co. v. Dastar Corp., 318 F.3d 881, 884 (9th Cir. 2003).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Zeitlin v. Wetenhall
Co. v. Dastar Corp., 318 F.3d 881, 884 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Coeur d'Alene of Cascadia LLC v. Krypton Health Services LLC
Co. v. Dastar Corp., 318 F.3d 881, 894 (9th Cir. 2003) (Ferguson, J., dissenting).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Jha v. Chicago Title Insurance Company
Co. v. Dastar Corp., 11 318 F.3d 881, 884 (9th Cir. 2003).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Edward Furnace v. B. Cope
Co. v. Dastar Corp., 318 F.3d 881, 888 (9th Cir. 2003).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Balazhi v. Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company
Co. v. Dastar Corp., 318 F.3d 881, 884 (9th Cir. 2003))).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Rogelio Castro v. Ppg Industries, Inc.
Co. v. Dastar Corp., 318 F.3d 881, 885 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting James v. Price Stern Sloan, Inc., 283 F.3d 1064, 1070 (9th Cir.2002).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
The Cincinnati Specialty Under v. Jeffrey Wood
(2×)
States Ins. -5- Co. v. Dastar Corp., 318 F.3d 881, 884 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1291 ).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Ehm Productions, Inc. v. Starline Tours of Hollywood
Co. v. Dastar Corp., 318 F.3d 881, 888 (9th Cir. 2003) (cleaned up).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Marche Meeks v. Yelp Inc.
Co. v. Dastar Corp., 318 F.3d 881, 888 (9th Cir. 2003) (finding even district court approval of a stipulation to dismiss without prejudice insufficient to constitute “approval” for purposes of the James exception). 1 Although Appellant dismissed his claims pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) and not Rule 41(a)(2), Appellant himself invokes the James exception, recognizing, as we have stated, that “[a]lthough the procedure for obtaining a voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) is different from the procedure for obtaining voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2), the rules regarding appealability a…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
E.R.E. Ventures, LLC v. David Evans and Associates
Co. v. Dastar Corp., 318 F.3d 881, 888 (9th Cir. 2003), we concluded that we did not have jurisdiction because the district 3 18-56573 court did not meaningfully participate in dismissal of the claims.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Airhawk International, LLC v. Ontel Products Corporation
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Co. v. Dastar 6 Corp., 318 F.3d 881, 884 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal citations and quotations omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Tilei v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
Co. v. Dastar Corp., 318 F.3d 881, 885 (9th Cir. 2003) 4 (citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Anna Galaza v. Chad Wolf
(2×)
Despite the lack of evidence of any attempt to manufacture appellate jurisdiction through manipulation, the circumstances of this case emphasize the need for district court involvement in this sort of dismissal so that the district court can offer a “clear indication of finality[,]” which would avoid “confus[ing] the parties and the public.” Id. at 889.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States Fire Insurance Company v. Mother Earth School
Co. v. Dastar Corp., 318 F.3d 881, 890 (9th Cir. 2003).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Gila Valley Irrigation District
Co. v. Dastar Corp., 318 F.3d 881, 889 (9th Cir. 2003).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Jewel v. National Security Agency
Co. v. Dastar Corp., 318 F.3d 881, 884 (9th Cir.2003) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1291 ).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Navigators Insurance v. Hamlin
Co. v. Dastar Corp., 318 F.3d 881, 890 (9th Cir.2003).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Jeffrey Herson v. City of Reno
Co. v. Dastar Corp., 318 F.3d 881, 884 (9th Cir.2003) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Fred MacDonald v. United States
Co. v. Dastar Carp., 318 F.3d 881, 888-89 (9th Cir.2003) (quoting James, 283 F.3d at 1068 ) (internal quotation marks omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Rollins v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.
Co. v. Dastar Corp., 318 F.3d 881, 884 (9th Cir.2003)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Pacific Fleet Submarine Memorial Ass'n v. United States Department of the Navy
Co. v. Dastar Corp., 318 F.3d 881, 888 (9th Cir.2003) (holding that we lacked jurisdiction over a final judgment that was obtained without the district court’s “meaningful[] participation] in the dismissal [without prejudice] of all of the remaining claims after granting partial summary judgment”).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
SEC v. Platforms Wireless Intern. Corp.
Co. v. Dastar Corp., 318 F.3d 881, 889-90 (9th Cir.2003).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cassirer v. Kingdom of Spain
(2×)
Co. v. Dastar Corp., 318 F.3d 881, 884 (9th Cir.2003), which no decision that is before us does.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Securities & Exchange Commission v. Platforms Wireless International Corp.
Co. v. Dastar Corp., 318 F.3d 881, 889-90 (9th Cir.2003).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sneller v. City of Bainbridge Island
(2×)
Co. v. Dastar Corp., 318 F.3d 881, 888 (9th Cir.2003) (noting that the plaintiff in James offered a legitimate reason for dismissal).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cassirer v. Kingdom of Spain
(2×)
Co. v. Dastar Corp., 318 F.3d 881, 884 (9th Cir.2003) (internal quotations and alterations omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza
Co. v. Dastar Corp., 318 F.3d 881, 884 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotations and alterations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Thompson v. Paul
Co. v. Dastar Corp., 318 F.3d 881, 887 (9th Cir.2003) (“[W]hen the parties do not toll the limitations period, a ‘plaintiff assumes the risk [that] by the time the case returns to district court, the claim will be barred by the statute of limitations or laches.’ ”) (quoting James v. Price Stem Sloan, Inc., 283 F.3d 1064, 1066 (9th Cir.2002)). 14 Had the Ninth Circuit intended that the Court on remand reconsider whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law IIED claim, the Ninth Circuit could have stated as much and reinstated the claim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Sangster v. Clark County Detention Center
Co. v. Dastar Corp., 318 F.3d 881, 884 (9th Cir.2003).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Sangster v. Clark County Detention Center
Co. v. Dastar Corp., 318 F.3d 881, 884 (9th Cir.2003).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Romoland School District v. Inland Empire Energy Center, LLC
(6×)
Co. v. Dastar Corp., 318 F.3d 881, 888-89 (9th Cir.2003) (quoting Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
T.L. Quach v. Cross
(2×)
Co. v. Dastar Corp., 318 F.3d 881, 884 (9th Cir.2003).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hill, Robert E. v. Potter, Jack E.
Co. v. Dastar Corp., 318 F.3d 881, 891-92 (9th Cir. 2003); Rebecca A. Cochran, “Gaining Appellate Review by ‘Manufacturing’ a Final Judgment Through Voluntary Dismissal of Peripheral Claims,” 48 Mercer L.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Robert E. Hill v. Jack E. Potter, Postmaster General
Co. v. Dastar Corp., 318 F.3d 881, 891-92 (9th Cir.2003); Rebecca A. Cochran, “Gaining Appellate Review by ‘Manufacturing’ a Final Judgment Through Voluntary Dismissal of Peripheral Claims,” 48 Mercer L.Rev. 979 (1997).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Alejandro Ceja-Prado
Co. v. Dastar Corp., 318 F.3d 881, 885 (9th Cir.2003) (“A party may not engage in manipulation either to create appellate jurisdiction or prevent it.”); Hajek v. Burlington N. R.R.
cited
Cited "see"
Fuhlrodt v. Rela, Inc.
See Dastar Corp., 318 F.3d at 890; Horn v. Berdon, Inc. Defined Benefit Pension Plan, 938 F.2d 125 , 126 n. 1 (9th Cir.1991).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Kendall DODSON; Dennis D. Dodson; Et Al, Appellants,
v.
J.C. PENNEY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee
v.
J.C. PENNEY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee
02-1601.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Jan 28, 2003.
Per Curiam.
Published
PER CURIAM.
The panel has voted to rehear this case. Accordingly, the petition for rehearing by the panel is granted. The petition for rehearing en banc is dismissed as moot. Counsel will be notified by the Clerk regarding a briefing schedule for rehearing to address the applicability of Ark.Code Ann. Sec. 23-88-110 and the issue of waiver as raised in the petition for rehearing and response. Should the panel determine, after receipt of the briefs, that oral argument is necessary, Counsel will be notified by the Clerk of the day, time and location of the rehearing argument before the panel.