Gilmore v. Weatherford

How courts have described this case

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

• holding federal-question jurisdiction was present where “plaintiffs have framed their state-law claim in such a fashion that they succeed only if they are correct that the defendants failed to meet federal requirements for [chat] removal”
• requiring individuals to seek administrative relief “even when the agency is unlikely to grant the relief requested”
• ooking to whether plaintiffs complaint raised a federal rule as an “essential element” of her claim
• “Requiring exhaustion of [claims asserted against agency precedent or an agency’s litigation position] allows agencies to take into account the specific facts of each matter, and to change course if appropriate.”
• “[W]hen a state-law claim ‘involve[s] substantial questions of state as well as federal law,’ this factor weighs against asserting federal jurisdiction.” (citation omitted)
• plaintiff “pled an accounting claim that they contend arises under federal 24 Case: 23-50869 Document: 181-1 Page: 67 Date Filed: 11/27/2024 No. 23-50869 common law”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).