Eighth Circuit· 7/24/2009

Fru-Con Construction Corp. v. Controlled Air, Inc.

Citations

574 F.3d 527
2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 16824
2009 WL 2194815

How courts have described this case

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

holding that “[w]hile both [contract and lien] actions stem from the same project and contractual relationship, each is premised on a different wrong arising from different occurrences,” and thus reversing a district court’s decision in favor of abstention
reasoning that proceedings are parallel “when there is a substantial likelihood that the state proceeding will fully dispose of the claims presented in the federal court”
noting that the fact that state law would apply to an action for breach of contract did not weigh in favor of abstention
noting that “this factor counts for or against abstention and dismissal only where one of the forums is inadequate to protect a party’s rights.”
noting that, under Colorado River, a federal court may divest itself of jurisdiction by abstaining only when parallel state and federal actions exist and exceptional circumstances warrant abstention
including “whether state or federal law controls” as an “exceptional circumstances” factor, which can only be considered after a determination that parallel proceedings exist

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Bye, Beam, Shepherd

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

36 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

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

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.