Employers Ins. of Wausau v. Shell Oil Co.

3 Citing cases

  1. Employers Ins. of Wausau v. Shell Oil Co.

    820 F.2d 898 (7th Cir. 1987)   Cited 15 times

    The California court has scheduled a trial for October 1987; the Illinois court has not set a schedule for proceedings, but its opinion stated that it perceived an "overwhelming likelihood [that] this case will be resolved by summary judgment". The district court's order, 653 F. Supp. 744, declining to stay its proceedings was entered on February 11, 1987; two days later Shell filed a notice of appeal. We promptly asked the parties to address the question of appellate jurisdiction.

  2. Markowski v. Edgar

    726 F. Supp. 1128 (N.D. Ill. 1989)   Cited 1 times

    An injunction, if granted, would not interfere with or duplicate a pending state proceeding. This conclusion is also supported by the general rule, cited in Employers insurance of Wausau v. Shell Oil Co., 653 F. Supp. 744, 747 (N.D.Ill. 1987), appeal dismissed, 820 F.2d 898 (7th Cir. 1987), that abstention is possible only when a parallel proceeding is pending in state court, i.e., one involving the same issues and parties. Markowski's state and federal court actions are not parallel because, although the parties are the same, the issues are entirely separate. Markowski's situation is not analogous to Younger and Dayton Christian Schools.

  3. Aetna Cas. Sur. Co. v. Sterner

    700 F. Supp. 252 (E.D. Pa. 1988)   Cited 3 times
    Declining jurisdiction on factor analysis similar to that relied on by this Court

    As discussed supra, the state action would most comprehensively address all the issues in the case including the single issue presented in the declaratory action. See Lumen Construction, Inc., 780 F.2d at 695-96 (state court litigation will likely eliminate need for any further proceedings in federal court; see also, Employer's Insurance of Wausau v. Shell Oil Co., 653 F. Supp. 744, 747 (N.D.Ill. 1987) (state court will pass upon the same question presented in this case). Fourth, the fact that the state court first obtained jurisdiction also weighs in favor of dismissal.