Celia Da Silva v. Kinsho International Corporation and Haruo Maruyama

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 judgment rendered by a court lacking subject-matter jurisdiction \is subject to collateral attack as void.\
• concluding that plaintiff’s “ultimate failure to prove single employer status is not a ground for dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or even for failure to state claim; it is a ground for defeating her federal claim on the merits.”
• noting that “whether a disputed matter concerns jurisdiction or the merits (or occasionally both) is sometimes a close question” that courts “often obscure”
• suggesting this as a situation “[l]ess clearly placed on one side of the jurisdiction/merits line”
• delineating two to determine that a claim is not legally frivolous before categories of subject matter jurisdiction
• noting that a federal court has an obligation, “on its own motion, to inquire as to subject matter jurisdiction and satisfy itself that such jurisdiction exists” (citing Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 278 (1977))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).