Philibotte v. Nisource Corporate Services Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that Philibotte's claims under TILA were barred by the statute of limitations and equitable tolling of TILA limitations was not justified
• stating that a federal court exercising supplemental jurisdiction must apply state substantive law
• applying federal law when determining jurisdiction, then applying state substantive law after determining there was jurisdiction to hear a state law claim
• “We need not, and so should not, reach that issue because Philibotte’s claim plainly fails to meet the first prong of the CCCDA definition”
• “[i]n ‘exercising supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim,’ we apply ‘state substantive law’ as that law has been applied by the state's highest court” (citation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).