Ruhrgas Ag v. Marathon Oil 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 “there is no unyielding jurisdictional hierarchy” with respect to the order in which a court must address jurisdictional questions
• holding that there is no hierarchy in the order of decision of issues of personal and subject matter jurisdiction
• holding that the doctrine of separation of powers typically requires resolution of jurisdictional issues before a court examines the merits of an action
• holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in first deciding personal jurisdiction
• holding that, because Steel Co. “does not dictate a sequencing of jurisdictional issues,” a court may “choose among threshold grounds for denying audience to a case on the merits”
• holding that courts “are not bound to decide any particular jurisdictional question before any other”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).