Louie Morris, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. City of Hobart, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that a claimed breach of a settlement agreement was not an action brought under Title VII
• holding that the case was dismissed with prejudice (a final disposition) because neither party acted in accordance with a closing order that gave the parties sixty days to reopen the proceedings or else face dismissal
• concluding that where plaintiff did not identify federal law creating cause of action for contract claim, “federal jurisdiction will lie only if resolution of th[e] breach of contract claim requires resolution of a substantial question of federal law”
• concluding that where plaintiff did not identify federal law creating cause of action for contract claim, “federal jurisdiction will lie only if resolution of th[e] breach of contract claim requires resolution of a substantial question of federal law”
• finding that agreement arising out of Title VII case did not grant federal ques tion jurisdiction over enforcement of agreement
• stating that a case arises under federal law if the complaint establishes that federal law creates the cause of action

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).