Louisville & N. R. R. v. Gilmore's Admr.

How courts have described this case

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

• refusing to intervene in state consumer-protection actions due to the state’s strong interest in the earlier-filed litigation
• remanding common-law fraud claims to state court for lack of federal question jurisdiction
• “A basis for removal is ‘objectively reasonable’ if the removing party had a colorable argument that removal was proper.”
• although a federal law—the Credit Rating Agency Reform Act of 2006 (““CRARA”)—had been invoked, it was not “necessarily raised” because plaintiffs’ claims did “not necessarily depend on an interpretation of CRARA or any regulations enacted pursuant to CRARA.” (emphasis in original)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).