ADKINS

v.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Mobil OIL Corp. v. City OF Long Beach, 772 F.2d 534 (9th Cir. 1985)
  …milar circumstances, we wisely interpreted Shell Oil as authority to dismiss in order to bar fragmentation of a case between federal and state courts. See Adkins v. United States District Court, [*542] 431 F. 2d 859, 860 (9th Cir.), cert. dismissed, 400 U.S. 921, 91 S.Ct. 181, 27 L.Ed.2d 182 (1970). Given the non-diverse parties’ stipulation to be bound by the district court’s construction of the agreement, and the probable conclusive effect the court’s decision would have had on Long Beach’s state court ac…
• Armistead v. Vernitron Corp., 944 F.2d 1287 (6th Cir. 1991)
  …dering whether the additional four factors mandated an award of fees. In general, a party asserting an abuse of discretion by a court has the burden of demonstrating it. See, e.g., Adkins v. United Stokes District Court, 431 F. 2d 859, cert. denied, 400 U.S. 921, 91 S.Ct. 181, 27 L.Ed.2d 182 (1970). In this case, plaintiffs have not shown us how consideration of the other four factors would have lead to a different result. The factors which seem to us most relevant to us are the third, fourth, and fifth. T…
• Intermedics Infusaid v. The Regents OF the Univ. OF Minn., 804 F.2d 129 (Fed. Cir. 1986)
  …hing the merits. . In Lear v. Adkins, the state court stayed its own proceedings on remand in deference to a federal patent declaratory judgment action. Adkins v. United States District Court, 431 F. 2d 859, 167 USPQ 16 (9th Cir.), cert. dismissed, 400 U.S. 921, 91 S.Ct. 181, 27 L.Ed.2d 182 (1970). The Minnesota court here did not have that option since Intermedies waived the issue in the state court. . Intermedies does not argue that the requested injunction is "expressly authorized by Act of Congress.”…