green
Positive treatment
published
9.5 score
Treatment trajectory · 1980 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1980
2003
2026
Cited for
At page 1233 Considering special factors for exercise of jurisdiction7 citing casesin deciding whether to defer to another federal court, court may take into account “desirability of avoiding piecemeal litigation
- Jerry Cox v. Mariposa Cnty., No. 1:19-cv-01105 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2021).Co., 600 F.2d 1228, 1233 (7th Cir.1979)).
- Lea v. United States, 120 Fed. Cl. 440 (Fed. Cl. 2015).publishedCo., 600 F.2d 1228, 1233 (7th Cir.1979); Walton v. Eaton Corp., 563 F.2d 66, 70 (3d Cir.1977).
- FPC CORP. v. Uniplast, Inc., 964 F. Supp. 1212 (N.D. Ill. 1997).published(in deciding whether to defer to another federal court, court may take into account “desirability of avoiding piecemeal litigation)
- Avi Nakash v. Georges Marciano, 882 F.2d 1411 (9th Cir. 1989).publishedCo., 600 F.2d 1228, 1233 (7th Cir.1979).
- Voktas, Inc., a Greek Corp. v. Cent. Soya Co., Inc., an Indiana Corp., & Cent. Soya Int'l, Inc., a Panamanian Corp. v. Se. Minerals, Inc., Third-Party, 689 F.2d 103 (3d Cir. 1982).published 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).
- Voktas, Inc. v. Cent. Soya Co., 689 F.2d 103 (7th Cir. 1982).published 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).
- Folsom v. Blum, 87 F.R.D. 443 (S.D.N.Y. 1980).publishedCalvert, supra, at 1233.
At page 1234 Weighing factors in exercising judicial discretion1 citing case
- Green v. Indal, Inc., 565 F. Supp. 805 (S.D. Ill. 1983).publishedThis 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.
At page 1236 cited at this page1 citing case
- Shaw v. Williams, 676 F. Supp. 168 (N.D. Ill. 1987).publishedSee also Calvert, 600 F.2d at 1236 (stay appropriate because “decision on the state law issues favorable to the federal claimant may obviate the need for a federal decision and even if the federal plaintiff still desires to pursue his fede…
Other citing cases
- Harrison v. XTO Energy, Inc., 705 F. Supp. 2d 572 (N.D. Tex. 2010).published
- Medema v. Medema Builders, Inc., 854 F.2d 210 (7th Cir. 1988).published
- Ridge Gold Stand. Liquors, Inc. v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 572 F. Supp. 1210 (N.D. Ill. 1983).published
- Evans Transp. Co. v. Scullin Steel Co., 693 F.2d 715 (7th Cir. 1982).published
- Jan M. Sexton Salmi v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 774 F.2d 685 (6th Cir. 1985).published
- Russ' Kwik Car Wash, Inc. v. Marathon Petroleum Co. Gastown, 772 F.2d 214 (6th Cir. 1985).published
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.
Published opinion
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.