Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): dissentingXconcluding that the Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction over Connecticut’s dispute with New York because New York state was the real party in interest). Defendants also claim that the relief UUtah seeks is retrospective, not prospective, because its effect will be to deprive the state of Massachusetts of its intellectual property. Defendants are correct that such relief would have a financial impact on UMass, as it would lose either a whole or partial interest in the patents, which have been licensed to pharmaceutical companies. Plaintiff argues that such effect is merely an ancillary effect of prospectively correcting inventorship of the patent. See Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 278, 106 S.Ct. 2932, 92 L.Ed.2d 209 (1986) (Ex c., 157 F.Supp.2d 1158, 1164 (D.Or.2001) (<HOLDING>). Unlike disputes over lakes, rivers, and state 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the district court has broad authority to take jurisdiction over a matter even when that matter is not brought by a real party in interest (B) holding that the state law of preclusion must be followed even when federal jurisdiction over the subject matter of a claim is exclusive (C) holding that court had no supplemental jurisdiction over claim by shareholder for breach of merger agreement that was the subject of the dispute between the merger partners over which the district court had subject matter jurisdiction (D) holding federal district court had subject matter jurisdiction over dispute between state of oregon and arizona corporation because it was not the sort of core sovereign interest that warrants the supreme courts original and exclusive jurisdiction  but rather exactly the sort of quarrel over money and technology that the district courts hear frequently when brought by private litigants (E) holding that district courts do not have appellate jurisdiction over state courts
Output (English): holding that court had no supplemental jurisdiction over claim by shareholder for breach of merger agreement that was the subject of the dispute between the merger partners over which the district court had subject matter jurisdiction