Grit v. Wolman

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the Amendments Act “while relying for definition upon state law elements, contains the federal components necessary to survive the constitutional challenge mounted”
• noting that the constitutional decision at issue there was different from the normal remand decision (existence of diversity or a federal question) that involved reference to a well-established body of law
• noting that the constitutional decision at issue there was different from the normal remand decision (existence of diversity or a federal question) that involved reference to a well-established body of law
• distinguishing imposition of punitive damages from imposition of state tort standard, arguing that latter but not former is inconsistent with federal law
• discussing the jurisprudential concerns associated with the inability to review a constitutional decision
• “Permitting the states to apply their own nuclear regulatory standards, in the form of the duty owed by nuclear defendants in tort, would, however, ‘frustrate the objectives of federal law.’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).