Brown v. Eli Lilly and Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “the elimination of non-diverse defendants prior to judgment saves the action from dismissal for lack of jurisdiction”
• explaining that the opposing party “must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts”
• explaining that the opposing party “must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts”
• concluding, where the party incorrectly assumed the judgment was a nullity, that “a judgment expressly certified as final under Rule 54(b) is no less final for omitting a statement supporting a determination that there is no reason for delay”
• deeming challenge “abandoned” where appellant “has offered no argument as to . . . why the [d]istrict [c]ourt erred” (emphasis added)
• deeming challenge “abandoned” where appellant “has offered no argument as to how . . . the [d]istrict [c]ourt erred” (emphasis added)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).