Sharon Ranell Grimes v. Mazda North American Operations Ford Motor Company

How courts have described this case

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

• affirming district court’s admission of evidence of alcohol use on date of accident as it was “clearly relevant” and went to the credibility of the plaintiff’s testimony describing the events.
• “The supplemental jurisdiction provision ... states congressional intent to prevent original plaintiffs ... from circumventing the requirements of diversity.”
• “district court properly retained subject-matter jurisdiction” when addition of non-diverse third-party defendant arose from “same nucleus of operative fact”
• “Third-party claims by defendants for contribution against a third-party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14(a
• “‘A court has ancillary jurisdiction of a defendant’s proper Rule 14(a) claim against a third-party defendant without regard to whether there is an independent basis of jurisdiction, so long as the court has jurisdiction of the main claim between the original parties.’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).