Philip Crosby v. Cooper B-Line, Incorporated

How courts have described this case

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

• observing in a case involving state-law claims with non-diverse parties that, “[w]ithout Section 301 ‘complete preemption,’ there is no basis for federal subject-matter jurisdiction over this case”
• observing in a case involving state-law claims with non-diverse parties that, “[w]ithout Section 301 ‘complete preemption,’ there is no basis for federal subject-matter jurisdiction over this case”
• “Factual overlap between a state-law claim and a claim one could assert under a CBA is not necessarily sufficient for preemption].”
• Resolution of retaliatory discharge claim depends on the employer’s motives, not the terms of the CBA.
• “The federal courts have an independent ‘obligation at each stage of the proceedings to ensure that [they] have subject matter jurisdiction over the dispute.’”
• “The Court has understood this to be a rule that overrides all possible applicable state law, or, in other words, as a rule of complete preemption.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).