State v. Martinez-Gonzalez

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that, because “the district court 1 never had jurisdiction to issue its rulings on the merits” of the plaintiffs’ claims, “[w]e 2 must therefore vacate as nullities the district court’s rulings on the merits”
• agreement “ma[de] reference” to the plaintiffs only in context of setting forth “conditions precedent” that they had to satisfy
• although a noncontracting party may have a stake in a judgment related to or arising under a particular contract, a court's judgment order does not necessarily render the noncontracting party an intended beneficiary
• “[T]he district court never had jurisdiction to issue its rulings on the merits . . . . We must therefore vacate as nullities the district court’s rulings.”
• “To come within the [administration clause of the McCarran Amendment], a suit must seek to enforce or administer rights of the sort covered by § 666(a)(1), already adjudicated.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).