Citation network
TafflIn Vs. Levitt
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 01, 1990
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
-
U.S. 455 (1990) U.S. Supreme Court Tafflin v. LevittSearch
-
U.S. 455 (1990) Tafflin v. LevittSearch
-
jurisdiction Page 493 U. S. 456 has not been rebutted by any of the factors identified in Gulf Offshore Co. v. MobilSearch
-
c) claims is rejected. Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. ImrexSearch
-
Co., 473 U. S. 479 , and Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-DuffSearch
-
American Express Inc. v. McMahonSearch
-
created to insure accounts in Maryland savings and loan associations that were not federally insured. See Brandenburg v. SeidelSearch
-
dismissed. 865 F.2d at 598-599. The Court of Appeals further held, in reliance on its prior decision in Brandenburg v. SeidelSearch
-
F.2d at 1191, provided a proper basis for the district court to abstain under the authority of Burford v. SunSearch
-
Charles Dowd Box Co. v. CourtneySearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Gulf Offshore Co. v. MobilSearch
-
Gulf Offshore, supra, 153 U.S. at 153 U. S. 479 (citing United States v. BankSearch
-
Lou v. BelzbergSearch
-
Chivas Products Ltd. v. OwenSearch
-
this void in the legislative history, petitioners rely, in the alternative, on our decisions in Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. ImrexSearch
-
Co., 473 U. S. 479 (1985), and Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-DuffSearch
-
of the Clayton Act to confer exclusive jurisdiction on the federal courts, see, e.g., General Investment Co. v. LakeSearch
-
to have been aware of and incorporated those interpretations when it used similar language in RICO, cf. Cannon v. UniversitySearch
-
petitioners' concern with the need for uniformity and consistency of federal criminal law is well-taken, see Ableman v. BoothSearch
-
Musser v. UtahSearch
-
as federal courts sitting in diversity are guided by state court interpretations of state law, see, e.g., Commissioner v. EstateSearch
-
effect on the uniform interpretation and application of federal criminal law, cf. Pan-American Petroleum Corp. v. SuperiorSearch
-
inconsistency than that which a multi-membered, multi-tiered federal judicial system already creates, cf. H.J. Inc. v. NorthwesternSearch
-
Hathorn v. LovornSearch
-
Compare McCarter v. MitchamSearch
-
Brandenburg v. SeidelSearch
-
Lou v. BelzbergSearch
-
Simpson Elec. Corp. v. LeucadiaSearch
-
Rice v. IanovichSearch
-
Cianci v. SuperiorSearch
-
County of Cook v. MidConSearch
-
Dubroff v. DubroffSearch
-
be brought in state court), with Chivas Products Ltd. v. OwenSearch
-
VanderWeyst v. FirstSearch
-
named as racketeering activity under RICO have close, though perhaps not exact, state law analogues, cf. Durland v. UnitedSearch
-
that offense when hearing civil RICO suits. This possibility, though not insubstantial, cf. 492 U. S. J., Inc. v. NorthwesternSearch
-
issues before us on the basis argued by the parties, which has included acceptance of the dictum in Gulf Offshore Co. v. MobilSearch
-
Minneapolis & St. Louis R. Co. v. BombolisSearch
-
federal claims from state court jurisdiction. Houston v. MooreSearch
-
St. Louis, B. & M.R. Co. v. TaylorSearch
-
to adjudicate the law of the land must be done, if not with the utmost clarity, cf. Atascadero State Hospital v. ScanlonSearch
-
The Federalist No. 82, p. 132 (E. Bourne ed. 1947). See also Galveston, H. & S.A.R. Co. v. WallaceSearch
-
General Investment Co. v. LakeSearch
-
U. S. 261 , 260 U. S. 287 (1922) (emphasis added). See also Blumenstock Bros. Advertising Agency v. CurtisSearch
-
Freeman v. BeeSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial