Claim of Romanko v. New York University

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the district court did not “abuse its discretion in finding that the availability of a state-court alternative undermines the argument for jurisdiction”
• recognizing our adherence to this principle “even in cases where state law has not been difficult to apply”
• noting that, unlike this case, “no unresolved factual issues relevant to the coverage question [were] pending in the state-court action”
• finding that the third Grand Trunk factor was neutral when the declaratory-judgment action is filed after the state-court action
• noting that this reasoning sometimes emphasizes the existence of difficult or fact- bound issues of state law awaiting resolution in the state-court litigation
• noting that “most recent decisions have held that district courts do not abuse their discretion in concluding that a declaratory judgment would settle the controversy by resolving the issue of indemnity”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).