Caroline Chevalier v. Kimberly Barnhart

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that Marshall abrogated Lepard v. NBD Bank, 384 F.3d 232, 234–37 (6th Cir. 2004)
• holding that courts “look to only federal law to determine whether the probate exception” applies
• holding that federal courts apply the probate exception based on the status of property at the time that a party filed his or her claims in federal court
• holding that a plaintiff “[m]ay not artfully cast a suit seeking to modify or interpret the terms of a divorce . . . as a state-law contract or tort claim in order to access the federal courts.”
• noting that modification or enforcement of a child-custody decree are remedies “typically attendant to the dissolution of a marriage” which would “entail continuing judicial supervision of a volatile family situation, and federal courts are poorly equipped to handle that task.”
• observing that unpublished decisions are \binding only on the parties\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).