Fox v. Maulding

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that this prerequisite is met “if substantially the same parties litigate substantially the same issues”
• stating that this prerequisite is met “if substantially the same parties litigate substantially the same issues”
• stating that the Court must “first determine whether the state and federal proceedings are parallel. Suits are parallel if substantially the same parties litigate substantially the same issues in different forums.” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)
• noting that pending state-court action doesn’t preclude parallel federal-court action
• declining to consider “how the state proceedings could have been brought in theory” in favor of “exam-in[ing] the state proceedings as they actually exist to determine whether they aire parallel to the federal proceedings”
• declining to decide “in the first instance” an issue that would be reviewed only for abuse of discretion on appeal because to do so would “enter the realm of de novo review”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).