Tenth Circuit· 11/2/2016

Dutcher v. Matheson

Citations

840 F.3d 1183
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 19696
2016 WL 6471724

How courts have described this case

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

holding a “statute’s use of the definite article ‘the’ supports the idea of focusing the inquiry on the identification of one state” (emphasis added)
noting that remand is required only if the plaintiffs “can meet all of the statutory requirements” (emphasis added)
holding a “statute’s use of the definite article ‘the’ supports the idea of focusing the inquiry on the identification of one state” (emphasis added)
explaining that, “[r]ather than divesting a court of jurisdiction,” the exceptions described below “‘operate[] as an abstention doctrine’” (quoting Graphic Commc’ns, 636 F.3d at 973 (8th Cir.))
explaining that, “[r]ather than divesting a court of jurisdiction,” the exceptions described below “‘operate[] as an abstention doctrine’” (quoting Graphic Commc’ns, 636 F.3d at 973 (8th Cir.))
explaining that, “[r]ather than divesting a court of jurisdiction,” the exceptions described below “‘operate[] as an abstention doctrine’” (quoting Graphic Commc’ns, 636 F.3d at 973 (8th Cir.))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Lucero, Hartz, Holmes

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

13 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

66 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.