Skip to main content
· 11/11/1902

Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Wabash R. Co.

Citations

  • 119 F. 678
  • 57 C.C.A. 322
  • 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 4723

Syllabus

<p>1. Federal and State Courts—Priority of Jurisdiction—Rule Stated.</p> <p>It is the settled rule that, when a state court and a federal court may each take jurisdiction of a matter, the tribunal whose jurisdiction first attaches holds it, to the exclusion of the other, until its duty is fully performed, and the jurisdiction involved is exhausted. While such rule is not limited to cases in which property has actually been seized under process from one court before suit is, instituted in the other, it is limited to actions which deal either actually or potentially with specific property or objects, and does not apply to actions strictly in personam.</p> <p>8 Jurisdiction of 'Federal Courts—Suit to Enforce -Decree of State Court.</p> <p>A federal court has jurisdiction, where the requisite diversity of citizenship exists between the parties to a suit, to enforce a decree of a state court by which a railroad company has acquired the right in statutory proceedings to construct a grade crossing over the tracks of another company, by enjoining the latter from placing or maintaining obstructions in the way of such crossing; and the right to grant such relief is not affected by the fact that an appeal from such decree is pending in an appellate court of the state, where, under the statute, it does not operate as a supersedeas,—the court having power to so shape its decree that the injunction will be effective only so long as the decree of the state court shall remain in force.</p> <p>8. Parties—Denial of Application to be Made Party.</p> <p>Such a suit is, in effect, one to enjoin a continuing trespass on the easement granted by the state court; and, where the company committing such trespass is a lessee in possession and operation of the road over which the crossing is to be made, its lessor is not an indispensable party, and will not be permitted to become a party for the purpose of ousting the court of jurisdiction.</p> <p>¶ 1- Conflicts of jurisdiction between federal

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that a party that raised objections in “its initial responses to the interrogatories” had “waived any objection to the discovery requests” in part “by failing to explain its position in response to Gray’s motion to compel”
  • applying the lodestar analysis when determining an award of sanctions for discovery violations
  • applying the lodestar analysis when determining an award of sanctions for discovery violations
  • applying the lodestar analysis when determining an award of sanctions for discovery violations

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Jenkins

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.