Jennings v. Roosevelt Hospital, New York Blood Center, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that courts often deem this factor “neutral” when, as here, “there is no evidence of procedural fencing”
• noting that while the questions raised in Cardinal Health’s declaratory judgment “are well addressed in many factual scenarios, those factual scenarios do not clearly analogize to opioid distribution”
• acknowledging that some inconsistency in the way it has treated the third factor in the absence of evidence of procedural fencing, but finding no abuse of discretion where district court deemed the third factor neutral
• acknowledging that some inconsistency in the way it has treated the third factor in the absence of evidence of procedural fencing, but finding no abuse of discretion where district court deemed the third factor neutral
• acknowledging that some inconsistency in the way it has treated the third factor in the absence of evidence of procedural fencing, but finding no abuse of discretion where district court deemed the third factor neutral
• finding that district court did not abuse its discretion in deciding that this factor weighs against jurisdiction “given the availability of [a state court] declaratory action and the fact that the case involves solely state law issues” (citations omitted

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).