State of Tennessee, ex rel., Misty D. Magee v. Andy W. Franks

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that Colorado River abstention was proper where the federal court would otherwise “consider[] the same evidence and arguments” as did the state court
• holding that, since the federal court was required to consider the “same evidence and arguments” as the state court did in an earlier action, dismissal or stay under Colorado River was proper
• holding that because the federal court was required to “consider[] the same evidence and arguments” as did the state court in an earlier action, dismissal or stay under Colorado River was proper (emphasis added)
• finding that the state court’s entry of a final judgment and the state court’s denial of Vulcan’s motion to vacate by the time the district court heard oral arguments on the motion to vacate weighed toward abstention
• finding abstention appropriate in part because the case “was gladly litigated by both parties in California,” and that only after Vulcan had received a negative outcome did it seek to “bypass the procedure that [it] had elected to follow” by filing suit in federal court
• “absent a showing that the chosen forum is unreasonable or was imposed by fraud or unequal bargaining power, the parties’ choice should be enforced”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).