Given v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that because “neither public nor private nuisances ‘necessarily raise’ federal law as a ‘necessary element,’ . . . federal agencies’ balancing of the harms and benefits of fossil-fuel extraction is not ‘necessary’ for proving either claim.”
• concluding, in circumstances similar to those present here, that the plaintiffs' state law claims did not involve the regulation of emissions
• holding argument in support of removal jurisdiction was forfeited because it was not sufficiently developed in the notice of removal or before the district court
• explaining that Grable’s first prong requires state-law claims to “hinge on the determination of a federal issue.”
• explaining that \federal-question jurisdiction is not conferred merely because some of Defendants' activities occurred on military installations\
• determining Grable jurisdiction did not exist where movant failed to establish one prong of the inquiry

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).