Florio v. Richardson

How courts have described this case

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

• refusing to adopt a rule which “would make diversity jurisdiction, in situations such as the one at hand, largely dependent upon the vagaries of state law.”
• affirming the district court’s dismissal sua sponte of an action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction despite the failure of any party to address the jurisdictional question
• Congress has restricted diversity jurisdiction, “relieving the federal courts of the overwhelming burden of ‘business that intrinsically belongs to the state courts’ in order to keep them free for their distinctive federal business”
• Congress has restricted diversity jurisdiction, “relieving the federal courts of the overwhelming burden of ‘business that intrinsically belongs to the state courts’ in order to keep them free for their distinctive federal business”
• Congress has restricted diversity jurisdiction, “relieving the federal courts of the overwhelming burden of ‘business that intrinsically belongs to the state courts’ in order to keep them free for their distinctive federal business”
• Congress has restricted diversity jurisdiction, “relieving the federal courts of the overwhelming burden of ‘business that intrinsically belongs to the state courts’ in order to keep them free for their distinctive federal business”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).