Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical & Energy Workers International Union v. Continental Carbon Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that if “[t]here is no overlap between the cause of action and the jurisdictional” question, it is “appropriate for the district court to consider extra-pleading evidence in its resolution of [a] Rule 12(b)(1) motion”
• explaining that, when addressing a factual challenge to subject matter jurisdiction, the court has wide discretion to consider evidence outside the complaint bearing on the court’s jurisdiction
• explaining that a facial attack “merely challenge[s] the sufficiency of the complaint, requiring the . . . court to accept the allegations in the complaint as true”
• noting that section 309(g)(6)(A)(ii) “deprives federal courts of jurisdiction over CWA citizen enforcement actions when a state has commenced and is diligently prosecuting the same violations under a state law ‘comparable’ to subsection 1319(g).”
• recognizing discretion to allow documentary and testimonial evidence under 12(b)(1)
• interlocutory appeals originate from district court’s order itself; appellate court can and should address different legal question if it controls disposition of certified order

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).