Miller v. Herman

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 court’s decision to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of a related state law claim is “squarely within its discretion”
• holding that there was \no problem construing the motion [to dismiss] as one for summary judgment\ where the plaintiff \responded to the motions\ framed in the alternative \collectively and universally\
• noting that the decision whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction is “squarely within [the district court’s] discretion”
• noting that the decision whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction is “squarely within [the district court’s] discretion”
• noting that \[t]he conflation of jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional limitations on causes of action is not an uncommon occurrence\
• noting that a court may treat a motion filed under Rule 12(b)(1) as a Rule 12(b)(6) motion if warranted, and collecting cases

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).