29 Cited authorities

Jefferson County v. Acker
527 U.S. 423 (1999) Cited 604 times
Holding that, as to element three, the moving party must show that the suit is "for a[n] act under color of office," which requires a causal nexus "between the charged conduct and asserted official authority"
Mesa v. California
489 U.S. 121 (1989) Cited 673 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding § 1442 "cannot independently support Art. III `arising under' jurisdiction," and, thus, removal thereunder "must be predicated upon the averment of a federal defense"
Watson v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc.
551 U.S. 142 (2007) Cited 340 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[w]hen a company complies with a regulatory order, it does not ordinarily create a significant risk of state-court ‘prejudice.’ A state-court suit brought against such a company is not likely to disable federal officials from taking necessary action designed to enforce federal law, nor to deny a federal forum to an individual entitled to assert a federal immunity claim."
Willingham v. Morgan
395 U.S. 402 (1969) Cited 836 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that federal court has jurisdiction over a case properly removed under § 1442 "regardless of whether the suit could originally have been brought in a federal court"
Durham v. Lockheed Martin Corp.
445 F.3d 1247 (9th Cir. 2006) Cited 838 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding defendants not charged with notice of amount in controversy until they have "a paper that gives them enough information to remove"
Whitaker v. American Telecasting, Inc.
261 F.3d 196 (2d Cir. 2001) Cited 933 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a "summons with notice may serve as an initial pleading under section 1446(b)."
Arizona v. Manypenny
451 U.S. 232 (1981) Cited 477 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, even though the government had invoked 18 U.S.C. § 3731 in its jurisdictional statement
Isaacson v. Dow Chemical Co.
517 F.3d 129 (2d Cir. 2008) Cited 143 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding the "acting under" prong satisfied because Dow "received delegated authority" from the Pentagon "to provide a product [Agent Orange] that the [g]overnment was using during war" and that it would otherwise need to produce itself
Ryan v. Chemical Co.
781 F. Supp. 934 (E.D.N.Y. 1992) Cited 137 times
Holding a corporation to be a person
Hagen v. Benjamin Foster Co.
739 F. Supp. 2d 770 (E.D. Pa. 2010) Cited 78 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding in MDL proceeding that defendants established a colorable federal defense supporting removal
Section 1447 - Procedure after removal generally
28 U.S.C. § 1447 Cited 33,714 times 110 Legal Analyses
Holding that with exceptions not relevant here, "[a]n order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise"
Section 1962 - Prohibited activities
18 U.S.C. § 1962 Cited 16,093 times 60 Legal Analyses
Specifying prohibited activities
Section 1442 - Federal officers or agencies sued or prosecuted
28 U.S.C. § 1442 Cited 5,233 times 89 Legal Analyses
Granting removal power to "[a]ny officer of the United States . . . or person acting under him"
Section 3012 - Service of pleadings and demand for complaint
N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 3012 Cited 2,318 times
Describing timing requirements for service of a complaint following a summons with notice
Section 306-B - Service of the summons and complaint, summons with notice, third-party summons and complaint, or petition with a notice of petition or order to show cause
N.Y. CPLR 306-B Cited 1,777 times 1 Legal Analyses
Explaining that service of the summons and complaint occurs only after "the commencement of [an] action or proceeding"
Section R305 - Summons; supplemental summons, amendment
N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 305 Cited 784 times
Setting out formatting requirements for litigation arising out of consumer-credit transactions to help curb litigation abuses

Kriss et al v. Bayrock Group LLC et al

29 Cited authorities

Holding that, as to element three, the moving party must show that the suit is "for a[n] act under color of office," which requires a causal nexus "between the charged conduct and asserted official authority"

Holding § 1442 "cannot independently support Art. III `arising under' jurisdiction," and, thus, removal thereunder "must be predicated upon the averment of a federal defense"

Holding that federal court has jurisdiction over a case properly removed under § 1442 "regardless of whether the suit could originally have been brought in a federal court"

Holding defendants not charged with notice of amount in controversy until they have "a paper that gives them enough information to remove"

Holding that a "summons with notice may serve as an initial pleading under section 1446(b)."

Finding jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, even though the government had invoked 18 U.S.C. § 3731 in its jurisdictional statement

Holding the "acting under" prong satisfied because Dow "received delegated authority" from the Pentagon "to provide a product [Agent Orange] that the [g]overnment was using during war" and that it would otherwise need to produce itself

Holding a corporation to be a person

Holding in MDL proceeding that defendants established a colorable federal defense supporting removal

Holding that with exceptions not relevant here, "[a]n order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise"

Specifying prohibited activities

Granting removal power to "[a]ny officer of the United States . . . or person acting under him"

Describing timing requirements for service of a complaint following a summons with notice

Explaining that service of the summons and complaint occurs only after "the commencement of [an] action or proceeding"

Setting out formatting requirements for litigation arising out of consumer-credit transactions to help curb litigation abuses