Citation network
Will Vs. Calvert Fire Ins. Co.
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 23, 1978
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
Will v. CalvertSearch
-
Fire Ins. Co. - 437 U.S. 655 (1978) U.S. Supreme Court Will v. CalvertSearch
-
Fire Ins. Co., 437 U.S. 655 (1978) Will v. CalvertSearch
-
U. S. 656 the Rule 10b-5 claim. Thereafter, that court, relying on Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. UnitedSearch
-
whether or not to defer to the state courts is largely committed to the discretion of the district court, Brillhart v. ExcessSearch
-
U. S. 260 . Pp. 437 U. S. 665 -667. MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN, who is of the view that Brillhart v. ExcessSearch
-
have done no more than require reconsideration by petitioner in light of Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. UnitedSearch
-
F.2d 792, 797. The Court of Appeals felt that our recent decision in Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. UnitedSearch
-
Will v. UnitedSearch
-
U. S. 90 , 389 U. S. 98 n.6 (1967). As we have repeatedly reaffirmed in cases such as Kerr v. UnitedSearch
-
States District Court, 426 U. S. 394 , 426 U. S. 402 (1976), and Bankers Life & Cas. Co. v. HollandSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Roche v. EvaporatedSearch
-
Insurance Co. v. ComstockSearch
-
Bankers Life & Cas. Co., supra at 346 U. S. 384 , quoting United States v. DuellSearch
-
Brillhart v. ExcessSearch
-
actions have concerned conflicts of jurisdiction between two federal district courts, e.g., Kerotest Mfg. Co., v. C-O-TwoSearch
-
Landis v. NorthSearch
-
App. to Pet. for Cert. D-5. It sought identical equitable relief in its federal complaint. Id. at 6. See Weiner v. ShearsonSearch
-
Aetna State Bank v. AltheimerSearch
-
b) (1976 ed.), preempted insurance from the reach of the federal securities laws. American Mutual Reinsurance Co. v. CalvertSearch
-
example of the proper issuance of the writ to protect eventual appellate jurisdiction is Thermtron Products, Inc. v. HermansdorferSearch
-
in at least one instance, we approved the issuance of the writ upon a mere showing of abuse of discretion, La Buy v. HowesSearch
-
States, 389 U. S. 90 , 389 U. S. 98 n. 6 (1967). Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. WestoverSearch
-
is made all the more apparent by our holding earlier this Term in General Atomic Co. v. FelterSearch
-
S. 662 -663, appears to me to indicate that it now regards as fully compatible the Court's decisions in Brillhart v. ExcessSearch
-
Ins. Co., 316 U. S. 491 (1942), a diversity case, and Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. UnitedSearch
-
Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. UnitedSearch
-
accepted by my Brother REHNQUIST, ante at 437 U. S. 662 -- of McClellan v. CarlandSearch
-
governs a multo fortiori. Yet, relying on the completely inapposite case of Brillhart v. ExcessSearch
-
the McClellan principle and all but ignores the analysis set forth in Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. UnitedSearch
-
The petitioner's motion to dismiss the bill was addressed to the discretion of the court. Aetna Casualty Co. v. QuarlesSearch
-
Maryland Casualty Co. v. ConsumersSearch
-
American Automobile Ins. Co. v. FreundtSearch
-
This is clear from the lower court cases approvingly cited by Brillhart -- American Automobile Insurance Co. v. FreundtSearch
-
and Aetna Casualty Co. v. QuarlesSearch
-
is especially lamentable in light of our decision only two Terms ago in Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. UnitedSearch
-
id. at 424 U. S. 813 , quoting County of Allegheny v. FrankSearch
-
disable federal courts from ruling de novo on purely legal questions surrounding such federal claims. See Cotler v. Inter-CountySearch
-
McGough v. FirstSearch
-
Clark v. WatchieSearch
-
F.2d 994 (CA9 1975). As recognized by Judge Learned Hand in Lyons v. WestinghouseSearch
-
of historical facts by a state court's adjudicating an exclusively federal claim raised as a defense, see Granader v. PublicSearch
-
that a district court should not stay claims over which the federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction. See Cotler v. Inter-CountySearch
-
Lecor, Inc. v. UnitedSearch
-
standard set forth in La Buy v. HowesSearch
-
Leather Co., 352 U. S. 249 , 352 U. S. 257 (1957), or under the prong of Will v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial