13 Cited authorities

Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng'g & Mfg.
545 U.S. 308 (2005) Cited 3,217 times 47 Legal Analyses
Holding "that the national interest in providing a federal forum for federal tax litigation is sufficiently substantial to support the exercise of federal-question jurisdiction."
Ford Co. v. Dept. of Treasury
323 U.S. 459 (1945) Cited 1,529 times
Holding that a taxpayer's suit against state treasury officials for “a refund of gross income taxes paid” was an action against the state and barred by the Eleventh Amendment
Sierminski v. Transouth Financial Corporation
216 F.3d 945 (11th Cir. 2000) Cited 434 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a court may consider evidence submitted after the removal petition is filed, "but only to establish the facts present at the time of removal"
Harmon v. OKI Systems
115 F.3d 477 (7th Cir. 1997) Cited 90 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a court can properly consider any reliable evidence shedding light on the amount in controversy if that evidence existed at the moment of removal and simply was not yet part of the record on that date
Ohio v. GMAC Mortgage, LLC
760 F. Supp. 2d 741 (N.D. Ohio 2011) Cited 23 times
Denying motion to remand parens patriae suit where relief sought “would benefit only a specific subset of Ohio citizens ... and would do little to protect Ohio citizens generally”
Pitts v. Ram Partners, L.L.C.
CASE NO.: 3:18-cv-00028-SRW (M.D. Ala. Nov. 5, 2018) Cited 2 times
CASE NO.: 3:18-cv-00028-SRW 11-05-2018 DEBORAH PITTS, Plaintiff, v. RAM PARTNERS, L.L.C., Defendant. Susan Russ Walker United States Magistrate Judge OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the court on plaintiff's motion to remand (Doc. 4), which is opposed by defendant Ram Partners, LLC. This case was initially assigned to the undersigned as presiding judge, and the parties subsequently consented in writing to the exercise of final dispositive jurisdiction by the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28
Koresko v. Murphy
464 F. Supp. 2d 463 (E.D. Pa. 2006) Cited 6 times
Finding that the "outcome-determinative nature" of the federal issue in the plaintiff's state-law claims makes it "actually disputed and substantial"
Section 1332 - Diversity of citizenship; amount in controversy; costs
28 U.S.C. § 1332 Cited 111,391 times 572 Legal Analyses
Holding district court has jurisdiction over action between diverse citizens "where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000"
Section 1331 - Federal question
28 U.S.C. § 1331 Cited 97,434 times 134 Legal Analyses
Finding that in order to invoke federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiff's claims must arise "under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States."
Section 101 - Definitions
41 Pa. Stat. § 101 Cited 127 times 3 Legal Analyses
Defining the "residential mortgage" "base figure" to mean "two hundred seventeen thousand eight hundred seventy-three dollars, as adjusted annually for inflation by the department through notice published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin"
Section 6201 - Short title
7 Pa. Stat. § 6201 Cited 33 times
This act shall be known, and may be cited, as the "Consumer Discount Company Act." 7 P.S. § 6201 1937, April 8, P.L. 262, § 1, effective 6/1/1937.
Section 502 - Usury and excess charges recoverable
41 Pa. Stat. § 502 Cited 30 times
Applying only when a person “has paid” a statutorily excessive rate of interest or charges prohibited by law
Section 506 - Enforcement
41 Pa. Stat. § 506 Cited 4 times
(a) When the Attorney General has reason to believe that any person has violated the provisions of this act, or the regulations promulgated hereunder, he shall have standing to bring a civil action for injunctive relief and such other relief as may be appropriate to secure compliance with this act or the regulations promulgated hereunder. (b) The department may examine any instrument, document, account, book, record, electronic data or file of any person, or make such other investigation as may be

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Banking and Securities v. TitleMax of Delaware, Inc.

13 Cited authorities

Holding "that the national interest in providing a federal forum for federal tax litigation is sufficiently substantial to support the exercise of federal-question jurisdiction."

Holding that a taxpayer's suit against state treasury officials for “a refund of gross income taxes paid” was an action against the state and barred by the Eleventh Amendment

Holding that a court may consider evidence submitted after the removal petition is filed, "but only to establish the facts present at the time of removal"

Holding that a court can properly consider any reliable evidence shedding light on the amount in controversy if that evidence existed at the moment of removal and simply was not yet part of the record on that date

Denying motion to remand parens patriae suit where relief sought “would benefit only a specific subset of Ohio citizens ... and would do little to protect Ohio citizens generally”

Finding that the "outcome-determinative nature" of the federal issue in the plaintiff's state-law claims makes it "actually disputed and substantial"

Holding district court has jurisdiction over action between diverse citizens "where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000"

Finding that in order to invoke federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiff's claims must arise "under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States."

Defining the "residential mortgage" "base figure" to mean "two hundred seventeen thousand eight hundred seventy-three dollars, as adjusted annually for inflation by the department through notice published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin"

Applying only when a person “has paid” a statutorily excessive rate of interest or charges prohibited by law