Legal Opinion

Murray v. Amalgamated Transit Union

District Court, District of Columbia

Decided September 2, 2016No. Civil Action No. 2014-0378Published

1Opinion of the Court

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JANICE MURRAY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 14-378 (JEB) AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION “Courts do not usually raise claims or arguments on their own. But federal courts have an independent obligation to ensure that they do not exceed the scope of their jurisdiction, and therefore they must raise and decide jurisdictional questions that the parties either overlook or elect not to press.” Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki,

562 U.S. 428, 434

(2011). And so, despite all of the ink spilled to date…

2Cases cited36 opinions

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of AmericaSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
Jerome Stevens Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Food & Drug AdministrationCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2005
Henderson v. ShinsekiSupreme Court of the United States · 2011
Trbovich v. United Mine WorkersSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
Edward Haase v. William S. Sessions, Director, F.B.I.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1987

31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.