Auto Parts Manufacturing Mississippi, Inc. v. King Construction of Houston, L.L.C. (2015)
green
· 111 citation events
across 23 courts.
Showing the 50 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 2015 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
201520202026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
Dentons v. Stairway Legacy Assets (2026)
Miss., Inc. v. King Constr. of Hou., L.L.C., 782 F.3d 186 , 193–94 (5th Cir. 2015) (“The district court’s interpleader jurisdiction is determined at the time the interpleader complaint is filed.”); see also id. at 194 (quoting Walker v. Pritzker, 705 F.2d 942 , 944 (7th Cir. 1983), for the proposition that “subsequent events do not divest the court of [interpleader] jurisdiction once properly acquired”). 7 Indeed, before addressing the parties’ cross-motions for summary judg…
“The district court’s interpleader jurisdiction is determined at the time the interpleader complaint is filed.”
green
Odom Industries v. Sipcam Agro (2025)
Miss., Inc. v. King Const. of Houston, LLC, 782 F.3d 186, 196 (5th Cir. 2015) (holding that a district court must consider an agreement to arbitrate as a “threshold question” (internal citation omitted)); Texaco Exploration v. AmClyde Engineered Prods.
holding that a district court must consider an agreement to arbitrate as a “threshold question” (internal citation omitted)
green
United States v. American Airlines Group Inc. (2024)
Miss., Inc. v. King Constr. of Houston, L.L.C., 782 F.3d 186, 192 (5th Cir. 2015) ("Because appellants request vacatur of the permanent injunction, there is still a live issue before this court, and the challenge to the district court's injunctive relief is not moot."); cf. Town of Portsmouth v. Lewis, 813 F.3d 54, 58 (1st Cir. 2016) ("[A] case is moot when the court cannot give effectual relief to the potentially prevailing party." (citation omitted)). - 19 - Instead, Ameri…
"Because appellants request vacatur of the permanent injunction, there is still a live issue before this court, and the challenge to the district court's injunctive relief is not moot."
green
Cure & Assoc v. LPL Financial (2024)
Miss., Inc. v. King Const. of Houston, L.L.C., 782 F.3d 186, 196 (5th Cir. 2015)).
green
Bufkin Enterprises v. Indian Harbor (2024)
Miss., Inc. v. King Const. of Houston, L.L.C., 782 F.3d 186, 196 (5th Cir. 2015) (citing Bridas S.A.P.I.C. v. Gov’t of Turkmenistan, 345 F.3d 347, 360 (5th Cir. 2003)).
citing Bridas S.A.P.I.C. v. Gov’t of Turkmenistan, 345 F.3d 347, 360 (5th Cir. 2003)
green
Bufkin Enterprises v. Indian Harbor (2024)
Miss., Inc. v. King Const. of Houston, L.L.C., 782 F.3d 186, 196 (5th Cir. 2015) (citing Bridas S.A.P.I.C. v. Gov’t of Turkmenistan, 345 F.3d 347, 360 (5th Cir. 2003)).
citing Bridas S.A.P.I.C. v. Gov’t of Turkmenistan, 345 F.3d 347, 360 (5th Cir. 2003)
green
Direct Biologics v. McQueen (2023)
Miss., Inc. v. King Const. of Houston, L.L.C., 782 F.3d 186, 191 (5th Cir. 2015) (“Permanent injunctions survive dismissal of the case; preliminary injunctions do not.”). 9 We therefore vacate the district court’s dismissal of DB’s claims and entry of final judgment. 9 Under the Federal Arbitration Act, a court “shall . . . stay” the proceedings upon finding that any issue is arbitrable. 9 U.S.C. § 3 .
“Permanent injunctions survive dismissal of the case; preliminary injunctions do not.”
green
Wells Fargo Bank v. Mesh Suture (2022)
Miss., Inc. v. King Constr. of Hous., L.L.C., 782 F.3d 186 , 193–94 (5th Cir. 2015) (“The district court’s interpleader jurisdiction is determined at the time the interpleader complaint is filed.”); Leimbach v. Allen, 976 F.2d 912 , 916–17 (4th Cir. 1992) (dismissal before final judgment of stakeholders from interpleader suit under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 22 did not destroy jurisdiction even though the remaining parties (the claimants) were nondiverse).
“The district court’s interpleader jurisdiction is determined at the time the interpleader complaint is filed.”
green
Lumsden v. Lumpkin (2022)
Miss., Inc. v. King Constr. of Houston, L.L.C., 782 F.3d 186, 191 (5th Cir. 2015) (citing Venezia v. Robinson, 16 F.3d 209, 211 (7th Cir. 1994)).1 Accordingly, Lumsden’s interlocutory appeal is DISMISSED in part for lack of jurisdiction and DISMISSED in part as moot. 1 Lumsden appealed the district court’s final judgment under Case No. 21-50272, which remains pending in this circuit and unaffected by this decision.
citing Venezia v. Robinson, 16 F.3d 209, 211 (7th Cir. 1994)
Miss., Inc. v. King Constr. of Hous., LLC, 782 F.3d 186, 194 (5th Cir. 2015) (“Even the mere threat of multiple vexation by future litigation provides sufficient basis for interpleader.
green
Stephen Hiser v. NZone Guidance, L.L.C. (2020)
Miss., Inc. v. King Const. of Houston, L.L.C., 782 F.3d 186, 196 (5th Cir. 2015).
green
Jenny Berry v. Banner Life Insurance Company (2018)
Miss., Inc. v. King Constr. of Hous., L.L.C., 782 F.3d 186, 195 (5th Cir. 2015).
green
US Life Ins Co in New York v. Abraham Holtzman (2018)
Miss., Inc. v. King Const. of Houston, LLC, 782 F.3d 186, 194 (5th Cir. 2015) (noting that, in “the first stage of interpleader,” the court only is concerned with whether the jurisdictional requirements have been met – “whether multiple claims have been asserted, or may be asserted, against a disinterested stakeholder, not whether those claims have merit.”).
Miss., Inc. v. King Const. of Hous., L.L.C., 782 F.3d 186, 193 (5th Cir. 2015) (cleaned up). 10 Berry v. Banner Life Ins.
cleaned up
green
Allstate Assurance Company v. Benton (2024)
Miss., Inc. v. King Constr. of Hous., 782 F.3d 186, 193 (5th Cir. 2015) (“Section 1335 has been uniformly construed to require only ‘minimal diversity,’ that is, diversity of citizenship between two or more claimants, without regard to the circumstance that other rival claimants may be co-citizens.” (cleaned up; quoting State Farm Fire & Cas.
Ed. 2d 488 (1989); King Const. of Houston, L.L.C., 782 F.3d at 197 (“…[S]trong federal policy favoring arbitration applies to the scope of an arbitration agreement…”).
“…[S]trong federal policy favoring arbitration applies to the scope of an arbitration agreement…”
Mississippi, Inc. v. King Const. of Houston, L.L.C., 782 F.3d 186, 196 (5th Cir. 2015) (citing Pers.
citing Pers. Sec. & Safety Sys. Inc. v. Motorola Inc., 297 F.3d 388, 392 (5th Cir. 2002)
Miss., Inc. v. King Const. of Hous., LLC, 782 F.3d 186, 192 (5th Cir. 2015).
green
Jones v. Thompson Machinery Commerce Corporation (2025)
Miss., Inc. v. King Constr. of Hous., L.L.C., 782 F.3d 186, 192 (5th Cir. 2015).
Mississippi, Inc. v. King Const. of Houston, L.L.C., 782 F.3d 186, 192 (5th Cir. 2015) (“A permanent injunction is necessary to give meaning to the plaintiff's discharge and to encourage interpleader actions.”).
“A permanent injunction is necessary to give meaning to the plaintiff's discharge and to encourage interpleader actions.”
green
Wells Fargo Bank NA v. Williams (2024)
Miss., Inc. v. King Constr. of Hous., 782 F.3d 186, 193 (5th Cir. 2015) (“Section 1335 has been uniformly construed to require only ‘minimal diversity,’ that is, diversity of citizenship between two or more claimants, without regard to the circumstance that other rival claimants may be co-citizens.” (cleaned up; quoting State Farm Fire & Cas.
Miss., Inc. v. King Const. of Houston, LLC, 782 F.3d 186, 193-94 (5th Cir. 2015).
There are two types of interpleader: “rule interpleader” under Rule 22 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and “statutory interpleader” under 28 U.S.C. § 1335 . , 782 F.3d 186, 192 (5th Cir. 2015).
green
Modern Woodmen of America v. Bryan A. Weaver, ET AL. (2026)
Mississippi, Inc. v. King Const. of Houston, L.L.C., 782 F.3d 186, 194 (5th Cir. 2015).
Miss., Inc. v. King Constr. of Houston, LLC, 782 F.3d 186, 194 (5th Cir. 2015)).
Miss., Inc. v. King Const. of Houston, LLC, 782 F.3d 186, 193 (5th Cir. 2015) (cleaned up)).
cleaned up
Mississippi, Inc. v. King Const. of Houston, L.L.C., 782 F.3d 186, 196-97 (5th Cir. 2015) (quoting Pers.
quoting Pers. Sec. & Safety Sys. Inc. v. Motorola Inc., 297 F.3d 388, 392 (5th Cir.2002)
green
Truist Bank v. Posey (2025)
Miss, Inc. v. King Const. of Hous., L.L.C., 782 F.3d 186, 192 (5th Cir. 2015) (cleaned up).
cleaned up
green
Nida v. Tactical Force LLC (2025)
Mississippi, Inc. v. King Const. of Houston, L.L.C., 782 F.3d 186, 196 (5th Cir. 2015) (citing Pers.
citing Pers. Sec. & Safety Sys. Inc. v. Motorola Inc., 297 F.3d 388, 392 (5th Cir. 2002)
green
All Green Corp v. Wesley (2024)
Mississippi, Inc. v. King Const. of Houston, L.L.C., 782 F.3d 186, 191 (5th Cir. 2015). 49 R.
Miss., Inc. v. King Constr. of Hous., L.L.C., 782 F.3d 186, 196 (5th Cir. 2015)).
green
Jackson National Life Insurance Company v. Hays (2024)
Mississippi, Inc. v. King Const. of Houston, L.L.C., 782 F.3d 186, 192-93 (5th Cir. 2015). 33 Rec.
green
Carol Sauer v. Judith Conner (2024)
Miss., Inc. v. King Const. of Houston, LLC, 782 F.3d 186, 193 (5th Cir. 2015).
green
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. v. TAYLOR (2023)
Miss., Inc. v. King Const. of Houston, LLC, 782 F.3d 186, 193 (5th Cir. 2015) (“Tellingly, appellants concede that, at the time of filing—and when Noatex removed the action to federal court—the district court had jurisdiction over the interpleader action because all of § 1335’s requirements were then met.”).
“Tellingly, appellants concede that, at the time of filing—and when Noatex removed the action to federal court—the district court had jurisdiction over the interpleader action because all of § 1335’s requirements were then met.”
green
Primerica Life Insurance Company v. Basilio (2023)
Miss., Inc. v. King Const. of Houston, L.L.C., 782 F.3d 186, 193 (5th Cir. 2015).2 Primerica has adequately pleaded both requirements here.
REISMAN PEIREZ REISMAN & CAPOBIANCO LLP Honorable Nelson Stephen Roman October 28, 2022 Page 3 Inc. v. King Const. of Houston, LLC, 782 F.3d 186, 192 [Sth Cir. 2015]).
Miss., Inc. v. King Const. of Houston, LLC, 782 F.3d 186, 196 (5th Cir. 2015).
green
American Fidelity Assurance Company v. Archie (2022)
Miss., Inc. v. King Constr. of Hous., L.L.C., 782 F.3d 186, 194 (5th Cir. 2015) (“The first stage of interpleader only is concerned with whether multiple claims have been asserted, or may be asserted, against a disinterested stakeholder, not whether those claims have merit.”).
“The first stage of interpleader only is concerned with whether multiple claims have been asserted, or may be asserted, against a disinterested stakeholder, not whether those claims have merit.”
green
The Church at Jackson v. Hinds County (2022)
The Court of Appeals which would have jurisdiction of an appeal of such action may thereupon, in its discretion, permit an appeal to be taken from such order, if application is made to it within ten days after the entry of the order: Provided, however, That application for an appeal hereunder shall not stay proceedings in the district court unless the district judge or the Court of Appeals or a judge thereof shall so order. 28 U.S.C. §1292 (b). 2022 WL 822180 , at *1 (5th Ci…
“We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (a), which grants this court jurisdiction to hear the appeal of an interlocutory order granting an injunction”
green
Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada v. McKinney (2022)
Miss., Inc. v. King Constr. of Hous., L.L.C., 782 F.3d 186, 193 (5th Cir. 2015). - 7 - arising from the Group Policy or Plan Benefits. ° Morris and McKinney shall take nothing herein.
green
THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA v. EVANS (2022)
Miss., Inc. v. King Const. of Houston, LLC, 782 F.3d 186, 194 (5th Cir. 2015) (noting that, in “the first stage of interpleader,” the court only is concerned with whether the jurisdictional requirements have been met – “whether multiple claims have been asserted, or may be asserted, against a disinterested stakeholder, not whether those claims have merit.”).
Auto Parts Mfg., Mississippi, Inc. v. King Const. of Houston, LLC 782 F.3d 186, 195 (Sth Cir. 2015).
green
New York Life Insurance Co v. Metzger (2021)
Miss., Inc. v. King Const. of Houston, L.L.C., 782 F.3d 186, 195 (5th Cir. 2015); see also 7 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R.
green
NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY v. GARTH (2021)
Miss., Inc. v. King Constr. of Houston, L.L.C., 782 F.3d 186, 194 (5th Cir. 2015) (noting that, in “the first stage of interpleader,” the court only is concerned with whether the jurisdictional requirements have been met – “whether multiple claims have been asserted, or may be asserted, against a disinterested stakeholder, not whether those claims have merit.”).
green
Soutullo v. Smith (2021)
Miss., Inc. v. King Constr. of Hous., L.L.C., 782 F.3d 186, 192 (5th Cir. 2015).
green
Bankers Life and Casualty Company v. Burdette (2020)
Miss., Inc. v. King Constr. of Hous., L.L.C., 782 F.3d 186, 192 (Sth Cir. 2015) (“statutory interpleader” under 28 U.S.C. § 1335 and “rule interpleader” under Rule 22 are “two types of interpleader” which “differ in jurisdictional requirements but not in substance”).
“statutory interpleader” under 28 U.S.C. § 1335 and “rule interpleader” under Rule 22 are “two types of interpleader” which “differ in jurisdictional requirements but not in substance”
green
Suntrust Bank v. Henderson (2020)
Mississippi, Inc. v. King Const. of Houston, L.L.C., 782 F.3d 186, 192 (5th Cir. 2015).
green
FUFC, LLC v. Excel Contractors, LLC (2020)
Mississippi, Inc. v. King Const. of Houston, L.L.C., 782 F.3d 186, 192-193 (5th Cir. 2015). 9 Rec.
green
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. v. COMMENTS SOLUTIONS, LLC (2019)
Miss., Inc. v. King Const. of Houston, LLC, 782 F.3d 186, 194 (5th Cir. 2015) (noting that, in “the first stage of interpleader,” the court only is concerned with whether the jurisdictional requirements have been met – “whether multiple claims have been asserted, or may be asserted, against a disinterested stakeholder, not whether those claims have merit.”).
As stated above, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the validity of the permanent injunction in the published opinion Auto Parts Manufacturing Mississippi Inc. v. King Construction of Houston, L.L.C., 782 F.3d 186, 192 (5th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom.