§Why CasetextPricing

Removal to Federal Court

undefined

10 Cited authorities

  1. Hunt v. Washington Apple Advertising Comm'n

    432 U.S. 333 (1977)   Cited 4,550 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that North Carolina's statute banning state grading of apples was discriminatory even though six other states also had no state grading

  2. IN RE FORD MOTOR CO./CITIBANK, N.A.

    264 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2001)   Cited 691 times
    Holding that “the amount in controversy requirement cannot be satisfied by showing that the fixed administrative costs of compliance exceed $ 75,000” because to hold otherwise would be “fundamentally violative of the principle underlying the jurisdictional amount requirement—to keep small diversity suits out of federal court”

  3. Horton v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.

    367 U.S. 348 (1961)   Cited 692 times
    Holding that Congress' elimination of removal jurisdiction over workers' compensation suits did not withdraw original diversity jurisdiction over such suits

  4. Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Mower

    219 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2000)   Cited 70 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding state statute imposing duty of confidentiality could have been source of defendant's obligation to his former employer

  5. JOHNSON v. ISCO INDUSTRIES, LLC

    Case No. 08-CV-485 (E.D. Wis. Nov. 21, 2008)   Cited 2 times
    Relying on loss of customer goodwill and customer information to competitor

  6. Sanchez v. Monumental Life Insurance Co

    95 F.3d 856 (9th Cir. 1996)   Cited 11 times

    No. 94-56651 Argued and Submitted May 8, 1996 — Pasadena, California Filed September 11, 1996 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Audrey B. Collins, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-94-01189-ABC. Before: Cynthia Holcomb Hall, Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain, and Andrew J. Kleinfeld, Circuit Judges. OPINION O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge: We must decide the proper test to apply to establish subject matter jurisdiction over a removed diversity case in which

  7. Section 1332 - Diversity of citizenship; amount in controversy; costs

    28 U.S.C. § 1332   Cited 114,799 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"

  8. Section 1441 - Removal of civil actions

    28 U.S.C. § 1441   Cited 51,346 times   151 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “[a]ny civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction founded on a claim or right arising under the ... laws of the United States shall be removable without regard to the citizenship or residence of the parties.”

  9. Section 1446 - Procedure for removal of civil actions

    28 U.S.C. § 1446   Cited 22,528 times   141 Legal Analyses
    Granting a defendant 30 days to remove after receipt of the first pleading that sets forth a removable claim

  10. Section 84 - California

    28 U.S.C. § 84   Cited 1,489 times
    Stating Amador County is part of Eastern District of California