State of West Virginia v. Nicholas Avory Cook

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that federal court had no supplemental 20 jurisdiction over state tort claim where it had no jurisdiction over the state as an 21 indispensable party
• holding that trial bifurcation can be used to mitigate jury confusion
• noting that a comparative disparity method is “more informative” than the absolute disparity method when the cognizable group “represents a small percentage of the population”
• holding that, when Montana law 20 deemed governmental entities indispensable parties in a state-tort claim against a state employee, the federal court had no supplemental jurisdiction over the state-tort claim if it had no 21 jurisdiction over the indispensable party
• holding that, where Montana law deemed governmental entities indispensable parties in a state tort claim against a county 23 employee, the federal court had no supplemental jurisdiction over the state tort claim if it had no jurisdiction over the indispensable party
• holding that, where Montana law deemed governmental entities indispensable parties in a state tort claim against a county 22 employee, the federal court had no supplemental jurisdiction over the state tort claim if it had no jurisdiction over the indispensable party

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).