New Beckley Mining Corporation v. International Union, United Mine Workers of America

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that proceedings were not parallel because “[t]he parties in both actions are virtually identical, but the issues raised and the remedies sought are not”
• noting that the order in which the two courts obtained jurisdiction “matters little” when the cases were filed nine months apart
• noting that “some factual overlap does not dictate that proceedings are parallel”
• discussing circumstances in which a district court should exercise its discretion to “surrender” jurisdiction in favor of a parallel state proceeding
• “Because federal courts have a virtually unflagging obligation ... to exercise the jurisdiction given them the existence of proceedings in state court does not by itself preclude parallel proceedings in federal court.”
• suits are considered parallel if “substantially the same parties litigate substantially the same issues in different forums” (citing LaDuke v. Burlington N. R.R., 879 F.2d 1556, 1559 (7th Cir. 1989))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).