Jeffrey Barstad v. Murray County

How courts have described this case

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

• suggesting that both of these factors will usually point to declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims
• stating that courts should ordinarily decline supplemental jurisdiction when all original-jurisdiction claims have been eliminated before trial
• finding that “in the usual case in which all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors. . . will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.”
• concluding plaintiff, who was made to obtain variance, failed to identify similarly situated landowner who had not been required to obtain same variance and thus could not satisfy similarly-situated prong of Equal Protection analysis
• stating that in the usual case where all federal claims have been dismissed before trial, the balance of “judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity” point toward declining to accept jurisdiction over the state-law claims
• noting that eight months was “sufficient time . . . to request an amendment to the scheduling order” and “the [plaintiffs] knew of the claims they sought to add when they filed the original complaint”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).