Lockyer v. Mirant Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a Landis stay was inappropriate where grounds other than judicial economy were offered and found to lack merit
• holding that lower court had jurisdiction to determine whether the automatic stay of the Texas bankruptcy court applied to the Attorney General's suit
• holding that a Landis stay was inappro- priate where grounds other than judicial economy were offered and found to lack merit
• noting that “absolute certainty is not required in order to put a party ‘effectively out of court’ within the meaning of the Moses H. Cone doctrine”
• recognizing a court’s 10 SARKAR V. GARLAND “discretionary power” to control its docket under Landis
• holding that the district court’s stay was improper where, among other considerations, “the proceeding in the bankruptcy court [was] unlikely to decide, or contribute to the decision of, the factual and legal issues before the district court”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).