Holloway v. Pagan River Dockside Seafood, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that a federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a complaint raising claims “so insubstantial, implausible, foreclosed by prior decisions of this Court, or otherwise completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy”
• noting a federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a complaint raising claims “‘so insubstantial, implausible . . . or otherwise completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy’”
• noting a federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a complaint raising claims “‘so insubstantial, implausible . . . or otherwise completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy’”
• suggesting court lacks subject matter jurisdiction where claim is “made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction[] or is so wholly insubstantial and frivolous that an invocation of federal jurisdiction should not be recognized”
• reversing district court’s dismissal of Jones Act claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and finding that disputes over whether Plaintiff will be able to prove the elements of the cause of action—including seaman status—must be resolved by a Rule 56 motion or by trial
• “Federal courts, sitting at law, have subject matter jurisdiction to hear and resolve Jones Act claims under federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).