To entertain the action ii grable sons metal products

This preview shows page 25 - 27 out of 106 pages.

to entertain the action ii. Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Manufacturing (pg. 109) 1. Facts: a. The Federal government had taken real property of Grable’s to satisfy a tax liability, and sold it to Darue. Grable later brought an action to quiet title, claiming that notice of the tax taking had not been given properly, so that Darue had not acquired clear title to the property. 2. Rule: a. Where a STATE LAW CLAIM NECESSARILY RAISE a STATED FEDERAL ISSUE , ACTUALLY DISPUTED , and SUBSTANTIAL , which a FEDERAL FORUM MAY ENTERTAIN WITHOUT DISTURBING any CONGRESSIONALLY APPROVED BALANCE of FEDERAL and STATE Judicial Responsibilities, FEDERAL JURISDICTION is PROPER. 3. Holding: a. Only some cases involving embedded Federal issues will qualify for arising-under jurisdiction 4. Analysis: a. An action of Quiet Tile arises under State Property Law , but Grable argued that the FEDERAL COURT had JURISDICTION over the case because, to determine whether Darue had acquired good title, the court would have to determine whether proper notice of the seizure had been given under the FEDERAL TAX CODE . Thus, to establish the state property law claim, Darue had to prove a proposition of Federal Law iii. Gunn v. Minton (pg. 111) 1. Facts: a. In the early 1990s , Minton, a former securities broker, developed the Texas Computer Exchange Network (TEXCEN) software that allowed financial traders to execute trades on their own. Stark agreed to lease TEXCEN. More than one year later, Minton filed for a patent that was granted by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on
26 January 11, 2000. Minton later sued the NASDAQ and the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) and alleged that their services infringed on his patent. NASD and NASDAQ argued that a patent is invalid when the invention claimed is sold more than a year before the patent application is filed. The district court granted summary judgment for NASD and NASDAQ. Minton sued Gunn for legal malpractice and argued that their failure to argue the experimental use exception in the original suit cost him the case. Gunn filed for summary judgment arguing no-evidence due to the fact that the attorneys did not know of the earlier sale in order for the experimental use exception to be relevant. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Gunn. Minton appealed to the Second Court of Appeals for Texas. Shortly after he filed his appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided a case that gave jurisdiction to the federal courts in malpractice suits arising from patent litigation. 2. Rule: a. FEDERAL JURISDICTION over a STATE LAW CLAIM will lie if a FEDERAL ISSUE is: (1) NECESSARILY RAISED, (2) ACTUALLY DISPUTED, (3) SUBSTANTIAL, and (4) CAPABLE of RESOLUTION in FEDERAL COURT WITHOUT DISRUPTING the FEDERAL-STATE BALANCE APPROVED by CONGRESS.

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture