Arnold v. Garlock, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “[c]ertainty or even likelihood of such an effect is not a requirement...”
• holding that “[c]ertainty or even likelihood of such an effect is not a requirement...”
• “Section 362 is rarely, however, a valid basis on which to stay actions against non-debtors.”
• “[O]nce a matter related to a bankruptcy case is equitably remanded, it is not subject to federal appellate review on any basis.”
• “Even if [defendant] had filed a counterclaim against the plaintiffs in each such case, . . . the district court would have been within its discretion to dismiss by order of the court under Rule 41(a)(2).”
• generally approving of \related to\ jurisdiction for contribution claims in the mass tort context, but declining to enter stay of the remand of third-party actions where the removing defendant had not shown a likelihood of success on any contribution claim

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).