green
Positive treatment
5.8 score
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Padilla
See generally, Nesbit v. Gears Unlimited, Inc., 347 F.3d 72 , 76 -77 (3d Cir.2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 959 , 124 S.Ct. 1714 , 158 L.Ed.2d 400 (2004) (federal courts have an independent obligation to satisfy themselves that they have subject matter jurisdiction and may raise the issue sua sponte); Packard v. Provident National Bank, 994 F.2d 1039, 1049 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 964 , 114 S.Ct. 440 , 126 L.Ed.2d 373 (1993) (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and as such are under a continuing duty to satisfy themselves of their jurisdiction before proceeding to the me…
discussed
Cited "see"
Christaldi-Smith v. JDJ, INC.
See Nesbit v. Gears Unlimited, Inc., 347 F.3d 72, 84 (3d Cir.2003) (holding that a district court should have decided whether a defendant employed more than fifteen people under the summary judgment standard rather than as a motion for judgment on the pleadings), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 959 , 124 S.Ct. 1714 , 158 L.Ed.2d 400 (2004).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In re Thorpe
See, e.g., Nesbit v. Gears Unlimited, Inc., 347 F.3d 72, 76-77 (3d Cir. 2003), cert, denied, 541 U.S. 959 , 124 S.Ct. 1714 , 158 L.Ed.2d 400 (2004); In re Mullarkey, 536 F.3d 215, 220 (3d Cir. 2008); In re Olick, 2010 WL 4509828 , at *1 n. 5 (Bankr.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
DeRosa v. ACCREDITED HOME LENDERS
See, e.g., Nesbit v. Gears Unltd., Inc., 347 F. 3d 72, 84-85 (3d Cir.2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 959 , 124 S.Ct. 1714 , 158 L.Ed. 2d 400 (2004); Pearson, supra, 247 F. 3d at 485-86 ; Hukill v. Auto Care, Inc., 192 F. 3d 437, 442 (4th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1116 , 120 S.Ct. 1978 , 146 L.Ed. 2d 806 (2000); Lusk v. Foxmeyer Health Corp., 129 F. 3d 773, 777 (5th Cir.1997); Esmark, supra, 887 F. 2d at 753 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Sabertooth, LLC v. Simons (In Re Sabertooth, LLC)
See, e.g., Nesbit v. Gears Unlimited, Inc., 347 F.3d 72, 76-77 (3d Cir.2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 959 , 124 S.Ct. 1714 , 158 L.Ed.2d 400 (2004) (a federal court has the independent duty to consider its subject matter jurisdiction and to consider sua sponte, if necessary, whether subject matter jurisdiction exists); Packard v. Provident Nat’l Bank, 994 F.2d 1039 , 1049 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 964 , 114 S.Ct. 440 , 126 L.Ed.2d 373 (1993) (“[i]t is axiomatic that federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and as such are under a continuing duty to satisfy themselves of th…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Krasner v. Episcopal Diocese of Long Island
Although there appears to be a split in the circuits as to whether this issue is a jurisdictional question or a merit inquiry, the Second Circuit has determined that it is not jurisdictional, but a “ground for defeating [the] claim on the merits.” Da Silva v. Kinsho Int’l Corp., 229 F.3d 358, 365 (2d Cir.2000) accord Fernandez v. M & L Milevoi Mgmt., 357 F.Supp.2d 644, 647 (E.D.N.Y.2005); see also Nesbit v. Gears Unlimited, Inc., 347 F.3d 72 (3d Cir.2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 959 , 124 S.Ct. 1714 , 158 L.Ed.2d 400 (2004); Johnson v. Apna Ghar, Inc., 330 F.3d 999 (7th Cir.2003); EEOC v…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Medical Instrumentation & Diagnostics Corp.
v.
Elekta Ab
v.
Elekta Ab
03-1067.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 29, 2004.
Published
MEDICAL INSTRUMENTATION & DIAGNOSTICS CORP.
v.
ELEKTA AB ET AL.
No. 03-1067.
Supreme Court of United States.
March 29, 2004.
1
C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 344 F. 3d 1205.