Hunter v. Gronouski

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that the court may grant the plaintiffs’ motion for voluntary dismissal over the defendant’s objection “if the counterclaim can remain pending for adjudication,” even though the court, in its discretion, may (and ultimately did
• declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a breach of contract counterclaim 13 after the court dismissed the claims over which it had original jurisdiction
• considering only whether work was transferrable to subsequent litigation to determine which fees could be included as a condition to voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2)
• ‘“However, St. Paul and the other cases ... do not involve a request for voluntary dismissal. Therefore, [those] cases are not instructive on the availability of a Rule 41(a)(2) dismissal ” (quoting O’Reilly v. R. W. Harmon & Sons, Inc., 124 F.R.D. 639, 640-41 (W.D. Mo. 1989)
• discussing the operation of Rule 41(a)(2)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).