Commonwealth v. Jacobs, E., Pet

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “jurisdiction of the federal courts ... ‘cannot be impaired by subsequent state legislation creating courts of probate’ ”
• holding that despite purporting to grant exclusive jurisdiction to specialized state probate courts over certain matters, state legislation may not divest a federal court of jurisdiction over a probate-related dispute
• holding that the probate exception does not apply where the party is not “seek[ing] to reach a res in the custody of the state court”
• holding that “jurisdiction of the federal courts…‘cannot be impaired by subsequent state legislation creating courts of probate’ ”
• holding that the probate exception “precludes federal courts from endeavoring to dispose of property that is in the custody of a state probate court.”
• holding that “when one court is exercising in rem jurisdiction over a res, a second court will not assume in rem jurisdiction over the same res.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).