RR Street & Co., Inc. v. Vulcan Materials Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that, where a complaint contains inde- pendent claims for declaratory and non-declaratory relief, district courts should apply Colorado River to the non-declara- tory claims and Wilton-Brillhart to the declaratory ones
• explaining that, where a complaint contains inde- pendent claims for declaratory and non-declaratory relief, district courts should apply Colorado River to the non-declara- tory claims and Wilton-Brillhart to the declaratory ones
• explaining that, where a complaint contains inde- pendent claims for declaratory and non-declaratory relief, district courts should apply Colorado River to the non-declara- tory claims and Wilton-Brillhart to the declaratory ones
• explaining that, where a complaint contains inde- pendent claims for declaratory and non-declaratory relief, district courts should apply Colorado River to the non-declara- tory claims and Wilton-Brillhart to the declaratory ones
• “There is no doubt that a court may dismiss or stay an action under the Wilton/Brillhart abstention doctrine where solely declaratory relief is sought.”
• “In Wilton, the Court ... rejected] the argument that exceptional circumstances under the Colorado River doctrine must exist in order to justify abstention in a declaratory judgment action.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).