Gunn v. Minton

Oral argument

• Argued

  58 min recording
  Listen

Source: CourtListener oral-argument corpus (CC0).

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that federal jurisdiction would run afoul of Grable’s fourth requirement where the issue implicated an area traditionally addressed by the States
• holding that malpractice claims, based on an attorney’s handling of a patent case, are not subject to exclusive jurisdiction of federal courts
• recognizing that states “have ‘a special responsibility for maintaining standards among members of the licensed professions’” (quoting Ohralik, 436 U.S. at 460)
• holding that the plaintiff's malpractice claim \will necessarily require application of patent law to the facts of [his] case\
• holding that a legal malpractice action regarding a prior patent action did not raise a substantial federal issue that conferred subject matter jurisdiction
• holding that the plaintiff’s malpractice claim “will necessarily require application of patent law to the facts of [his] case”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).