How cited: Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. v. Drexel Chemical Co. · Go Syfert

Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. v. Drexel Chemical Co. (2009)

green · 14 citation events across 3 courts. Showing the 10 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Quote Authority · D.D.C. · signal: accord · 3 citations in this opinion
Accord Syngenta, 655 F. Supp. 2d at 62 (“Because Syngenta has not established subject matter jurisdiction independent of . . . the All Writs Act, it cannot independently assert subject matter jurisdiction under [it].”). * * * If Dantzler’s petition can be construed as raising other claims against the NAACP Defendants, none would survive dismissal.
“Because Syngenta has not established subject matter jurisdiction independent of . . . the All Writs Act, it cannot independently assert subject matter jurisdiction under [it].”
Rule Authority · E.D. Wis.
Co., 655 F. Supp. 2d 54, 62 (D.D.C. 2009); Dist. 2, Marine Eng’rs Beneficial Ass’n, Associated Mar.
green Herr v. Ludwig (2025)
Rule Authority · E.D. Wis.
Co., 655 F. Supp. 2d 54, 62 (D.D.C. 2009); Dist. 2, Marine Eng’rs Beneficial Ass’n, Associated Mar.
green Hunter v. Haas (2025)
Rule Authority · D.S.D.
Co., 655 F. Supp. 2d 54, 62 (D.D.C. 2009) (holding that a federal district court does not have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 to order a private entity to perform a duty or to act); Carman v. Richardson, 357 F. Supp. 1148, 1157 (D.
holding that a federal district court does not have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 to order a private entity to perform a duty or to act
Quote Authority · D.D.C.
Co., 655 F. Supp. 2d 54, 61 (D.D.C. 2009) (“The Constitution is not offended when parties are willing to arbitrate . . . .”).
“The Constitution is not offended when parties are willing to arbitrate . . . .”
Rule Authority · D.D.C.
See, e.g., González-Vera v. Townley, 83 F. Supp. 3d 306, 314 (D.D.C. 2015) (private debtor); Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc., 655 F. Supp. 2d at 62 (business competitor and arbitration panel); Dantzler v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., Civ.
business competitor and arbitration panel
green Arunachalam v. Harris (2021)
Rule Authority · D.D.C.
Pa. Nov. 14, 2013) (finding that mandamus relief under § 1361 cannot be obtained against utility companies and their employees); Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. v. Drexel Chemical Co., 655 F. Supp. 2d 54, 62 (D.D.C. 2009) (concluding that 28 U.S.C. § 1361 does not confer subject matter jurisdiction in case where plaintiff sought to compel private, not federal, entities to act).
concluding that 28 U.S.C. § 1361 does not confer subject matter jurisdiction in case where plaintiff sought to compel private, not federal, entities to act
Rule Authority · D.D.C.
Pa. Nov. l4, 2013) (finding that mandamus relief under § 1361 carmot be obtained against utility companies and their employees)', Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. v. Drexel Chemical Co., 655 F. Supp. 2d 54, 62 (D.D.C. 2009) (concluding that 28 U.S.C. § 1361 , does not confer subject matter jurisdiction in case where plaintiff sought to compel private, not federal, entities to act).
concluding that 28 U.S.C. § 1361 , does not confer subject matter jurisdiction in case where plaintiff sought to compel private, not federal, entities to act
Rule Authority · D.D.C.
Co., No. 08-1627, 2009 WL 2584767, *5 (D.D.C.
green Manning v. Barr (2021)
Cited · D.D.C. · signal: see
See Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. Drexel Chemical Co., 655 F. Supp. 2d 54, 62 (D.D.C. 2009).5 B.