22 Cited authorities

Empire Healthchoice v. McVeigh
547 U.S. 677 (2006) Cited 1,730 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding that the federal government's "overwhelming interest in attracting able workers to the federal workforce" and "in the health and welfare of the federal workers upon whom it relies to carry out its functions" was insufficient to transform a "state-court-initiated tort litigation" into a "federal case"
Jerome B. Grubart, Inc. v. Great Lakes Dredge Dock
513 U.S. 527 (1995) Cited 928 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that the location test was satisfied when a crane, attached to a barge, was used to lift and replace pilings around a bridge pier and a tunnel flooded after an accident
ARCO Envtl. Remediation, L.L.C. v. Dept. of Health and Envtl. Quality
213 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2000) Cited 3,278 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that injunctive relief ordering the release of documentation to the public about a contaminated site does not challenge a pending cleanup effort because access to information "does not alter cleanup requirements or environmental standards" and does not "terminate or delay the ... cleanup"
Romero v. International Term. Co.
358 U.S. 354 (1959) Cited 958 times
Holding that the district court had pendant jurisdiction to consider maintenance and cure claims brought "by a complaint at law rather than by a libel in admiralty" because the complaint also alleged a Jones Act violation, which was within the district court's jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Herb's Welding, Inc. v. Gray
470 U.S. 414 (1985) Cited 179 times
Holding that a welder responsible for general maintenance on a fixed oil platform in state territorial waters is not engaged in maritime employment
Barker v. Hercules Offshore, Inc.
713 F.3d 208 (5th Cir. 2013) Cited 238 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that the plaintiff was not within the zone of danger because he was two feet away from the opening in the drill floor, which was where the accident occurred, and had testified that he was "out of the dangerous position where something could have happened"
Michigan v. United States Army Corps of Eng'rs
667 F.3d 765 (7th Cir. 2011) Cited 181 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that for harm to be likely “there must be more than a mere possibility that harm will come to pass ... but the alleged harm need not be occurring or be certain before a court may grant relief”
Williams v. Costco Wholesale Corp.
471 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. 2006) Cited 174 times
Holding that district court had no discretion to remand state-law claims on federal-question grounds when court also had diversity jurisdiction
Bd. of Comm'rs of the Se. La. Flood Prot. Auth.—E. v. Tenn. Gas Pipeline Co.
850 F.3d 714 (5th Cir. 2017) Cited 73 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding that federal issue was necessarily raised and distinguishing MSOF because of "[t]he absence of any state law grounding for" plaintiff's theory of negligence
Tenn. Gas Pipeline v. Houston Cas. Ins. Co.
87 F.3d 150 (5th Cir. 1996) Cited 119 times
Holding that “removal is consistent with the second sentence of § 1441(b), if not the first”
Section 1446 - Procedure for removal of civil actions
28 U.S.C. § 1446 Cited 21,883 times 141 Legal Analyses
Granting a defendant 30 days to remove after receipt of the first pleading that sets forth a removable claim
Section 30101 - Extension of jurisdiction to cases of damage or injury on land
46 U.S.C. § 30101 Cited 224 times 1 Legal Analyses
Providing that "[t]he admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States extends to and includes cases of injury or damage, to person or property, caused by a vessel on navigable waters"

The People of the State of California v. BP P.L.C. et al

22 Cited authorities

Holding that the location test was satisfied when a crane, attached to a barge, was used to lift and replace pilings around a bridge pier and a tunnel flooded after an accident

Holding that injunctive relief ordering the release of documentation to the public about a contaminated site does not challenge a pending cleanup effort because access to information "does not alter cleanup requirements or environmental standards" and does not "terminate or delay the ... cleanup"

Holding that the district court had pendant jurisdiction to consider maintenance and cure claims brought "by a complaint at law rather than by a libel in admiralty" because the complaint also alleged a Jones Act violation, which was within the district court's jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331

Holding that a welder responsible for general maintenance on a fixed oil platform in state territorial waters is not engaged in maritime employment

Holding that the plaintiff was not within the zone of danger because he was two feet away from the opening in the drill floor, which was where the accident occurred, and had testified that he was "out of the dangerous position where something could have happened"

Holding that for harm to be likely “there must be more than a mere possibility that harm will come to pass ... but the alleged harm need not be occurring or be certain before a court may grant relief”

Holding that district court had no discretion to remand state-law claims on federal-question grounds when court also had diversity jurisdiction

Finding that federal issue was necessarily raised and distinguishing MSOF because of "[t]he absence of any state law grounding for" plaintiff's theory of negligence

Holding that “removal is consistent with the second sentence of § 1441(b), if not the first”

Granting a defendant 30 days to remove after receipt of the first pleading that sets forth a removable claim

Providing that "[t]he admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States extends to and includes cases of injury or damage, to person or property, caused by a vessel on navigable waters"