11 Cited authorities

Hertz Corp. v. Friend
559 U.S. 77 (2010) Cited 4,208 times 29 Legal Analyses
Holding that a corporation's principal place of business is “the place where a corporation's officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation's activities”
Lowery v. Alabama Power
483 F.3d 1184 (11th Cir. 2007) Cited 1,473 times 28 Legal Analyses
Holding that the amount in controversy requirement for CAFA jurisdiction was not met because the court could not conclude, and it was impermissible speculation for the court to conclude, from the nature of the claims the Plaintiffs asserted that the aggregate jurisdictional amount would be exceeded
Sinaltrainal v. Coca-Cola Co.
578 F.3d 1252 (11th Cir. 2009) Cited 1,152 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that a complaint fails to state a claim unless the well-pled factual allegations of the complaint nudge the claims across the line from conceivable to plausible
Roe v. Michelin N. Am., Inc.
613 F.3d 1058 (11th Cir. 2010) Cited 698 times
Holding that it may be facially apparent from the pleadings whether the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional requirement
Hollinger v. Home State Mut. Ins. Co.
654 F.3d 564 (5th Cir. 2011) Cited 219 times 3 Legal Analyses
Finding that defendants were primary defendants after considering the fact that all punitive class members had claims against them and that they had issued the insurance policies at the center of the dispute
In re Sprint Nextel Corp.
593 F.3d 669 (7th Cir. 2010) Cited 100 times 9 Legal Analyses
Vacating remand order and remanding to the district court to "give the plaintiffs another opportunity to prove that the proposed class satisfies the requirements of the home-state exception"
Dist. of Columbia v. Murphy
314 U.S. 441 (1941) Cited 214 times
Stating that the "question of domicile" is "to be settled" by reviewing the " indicia of where a man's home is"
Stine v. Moore
213 F.2d 446 (5th Cir. 1954) Cited 243 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding change in domicile where party moved from Texas to Louisiana where he "had both the residence in fact and the purpose to make Louisiana his home" at the time of the filing of the complaint
Hirschbach v. NVE Bank
496 F. Supp. 2d 451 (D.N.J. 2007) Cited 43 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that " state law cause of action does not give rise to a substantial and disputed question of federal law simply because it is predicated on conduct regulated by federal law."
In re Hannaford Bros. Co.
564 F.3d 75 (1st Cir. 2009) Cited 40 times 1 Legal Analyses
Rejecting argument that plaintiff has improperly defined the class by requiring all class members to be citizens of a certain state

In Re: Checking Account Overdraft Litigation

11 Cited authorities

Holding that a corporation's principal place of business is “the place where a corporation's officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation's activities”

Holding that the amount in controversy requirement for CAFA jurisdiction was not met because the court could not conclude, and it was impermissible speculation for the court to conclude, from the nature of the claims the Plaintiffs asserted that the aggregate jurisdictional amount would be exceeded

Holding that a complaint fails to state a claim unless the well-pled factual allegations of the complaint nudge the claims across the line from conceivable to plausible

Holding that it may be facially apparent from the pleadings whether the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional requirement

Finding that defendants were primary defendants after considering the fact that all punitive class members had claims against them and that they had issued the insurance policies at the center of the dispute

Vacating remand order and remanding to the district court to "give the plaintiffs another opportunity to prove that the proposed class satisfies the requirements of the home-state exception"

Stating that the "question of domicile" is "to be settled" by reviewing the " indicia of where a man's home is"

Finding change in domicile where party moved from Texas to Louisiana where he "had both the residence in fact and the purpose to make Louisiana his home" at the time of the filing of the complaint

Holding that " state law cause of action does not give rise to a substantial and disputed question of federal law simply because it is predicated on conduct regulated by federal law."

Rejecting argument that plaintiff has improperly defined the class by requiring all class members to be citizens of a certain state