33 Cited authorities

  1. Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams

    482 U.S. 386 (1987)   Cited 8,699 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding pre-empted "claims founded directly on rights created by collective-bargaining agreements, and also claims substantially dependent on analysis of a collective-bargaining agreement"
  2. Franchise Tax Bd. v. Laborers Vacation Trust

    463 U.S. 1 (1983)   Cited 9,011 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a preemption defense even where "both parties admit that the defense is the only question truly at issue in the case"
  3. Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp.

    486 U.S. 800 (1988)   Cited 2,659 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the appeal belonged before the regional circuit because the claims did not arise under patent law
  4. Holmes Grp., v. Vornado Air Circulation Sys., Inc.

    535 U.S. 826 (2002)   Cited 1,152 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "`[l]inguistic consistency'" required that the same "arising under" test be applied to the jurisdictional statute for patent claims, 28 U.S.C. § 1338, as is used for the general federal jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331
  5. Medtronic, Inc. v. Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC

    571 U.S. 191 (2014)   Cited 221 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Declaratory Judgment Act is procedural only and does not affect substantive rights including the allocation of the burden of proof
  6. Virgin Atlantic Airways v. Nat. Mediation Bd.

    956 F.2d 1245 (2d Cir. 1992)   Cited 1,568 times
    Holding that "[e]ven if Rule 54(b) allows parties to request district courts to revisit earlier rulings, the moving party must do so within the strictures of the law of the case doctrine"
  7. Whitaker v. American Telecasting, Inc.

    261 F.3d 196 (2d Cir. 2001)   Cited 695 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that pleading which provided incomplete address information did not allow the defendant to "intelligently ascertain" removability; the defendant was not required to research the missing address of another named defendant to discover removability
  8. Albert v. Loksen

    239 F.3d 256 (2d Cir. 2001)   Cited 333 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it could not decide the issue of defendant's fault in making the allegedly defamatory statements because the record lacked sufficient evidence on the issue
  9. California Public Employees' v. Worldcom, Inc.

    368 F.3d 86 (2d Cir. 2004)   Cited 263 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that § 22 does not bar removal under § 1452
  10. Hunter Douglas Inc. v. Harmonic Design

    153 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 184 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a state law claim of injurious falsehood presents a substantial question of patent law where plaintiff had to prove patent invalidity
  11. Section 1331 - Federal question

    28 U.S.C. § 1331   Cited 79,552 times   96 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."
  12. Section 1441 - Removal of civil actions

    28 U.S.C. § 1441   Cited 38,880 times   108 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a civil action brought in state court can be removed to federal court if the district court would have had original jurisdiction over the action
  13. Section 1446 - Procedure for removal of civil actions

    28 U.S.C. § 1446   Cited 15,427 times   123 Legal Analyses
    Granting a defendant 30 days to remove after receipt of the first pleading that sets forth a removable claim
  14. Section 1338 - Patents, plant variety protection, copyrights, mask works, designs, trademarks, and unfair competition

    28 U.S.C. § 1338   Cited 4,178 times   67 Legal Analyses
    Granting exclusive jurisdiction to the district courts "of any civil action arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents, . . . copyrights and trademarks"