Stuart v. Colorado Interstate Gas Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that there are cases where the court will not take jurisdiction unless the plaintiff has asserted a claim cognizable in state courts
• explaining that under a 12(b)(1) facial attack “the district court must accept the complaint allegations as true”
• explaining that under a 12(b)(1) “facial attack, the district court must accept the complaint allegations as true”
• explaining that the defendant “chose the second form of attack” by going “beyond allegations contained in the complaint and challeng[ing] the facts upon which subject matter jurisdiction is based”
• recognizing under a 12(b)(1) factual challenge to subject matter jurisdiction, “a court has wide discretion to allow affidavits, other documents, and a limited evidentiary hearing to resolve disputed jurisdictional facts” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)
• noting that in making an Erie guess, the court is “free to consider all resources available, including decisions of [the state’s] courts, other state courts and federal courts, in addition to the general weight and trend of authority”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).