12 Cited authorities

Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams
482 U.S. 386 (1987) Cited 11,198 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that the rule that a federal defense does not suffice to show that a claim arises under federal law applies "even if the defense is anticipated in the plaintiff's complaint, and even if both parties concede that the federal defense is the only question truly at issue"
Franchise Tax Bd. v. Laborers Vacation Trust
463 U.S. 1 (1983) Cited 10,424 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"
Merrell Dow Pharms. Inc. v. Thompson
478 U.S. 804 (1986) Cited 3,515 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that private actors have no federal cause of action for a violation of the Federal Drug and Cosmetic Act
Lowe v. Ingalls Shipbuilding, a Div., Litton
723 F.2d 1173 (5th Cir. 1984) Cited 292 times
Rejecting admiralty jurisdiction and citing Hollister for the proposition "that an injury to a ship construction worker on board a ship under construction and lying in navigable waters is not a maritime tort"
Laughlin v. Prudential Ins. Co.
882 F.2d 187 (5th Cir. 1989) Cited 120 times
Holding that the "removing party bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction."
Kidd v. Southwest Airlines, Co.
891 F.2d 540 (5th Cir. 1990) Cited 95 times
Holding that amending complaint after denial of a motion to remand was taking advantage of the federal forum and constituted waiver
Epps v. Bexar-Medina-Atascosa Counties Water Improvement District No. 1
665 F.2d 594 (5th Cir. 1982) Cited 93 times
No. 81-1138. Summary Calendar. January 11, 1982. Ronald Hornberger, San Antonio, Tex., for plaintiffs-appellants. Marc O. Knisely, Robert Wilson, Austin, Tex., for defendants-appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. Before BROWN, POLITZ and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. POLITZ, Circuit Judge: This appeal presents the threshold inquiry for all federal litigation — subject matter jurisdiction. Finding an absence of such jurisdiction the district court dismissed
Grace v. Interstate Life Acc., Ins. Co.
916 F. Supp. 1185 (M.D. Ala. 1996) Cited 21 times
Finding suppression claim sufficiently pled based on the particular circumstances, that defendant, an insurance agent, owed plaintiff a duty to disclose to her that the disputed policy duplicated her Medicaid benefits and was thus unnecessary
Rogers v. Modern Woodmen of America
Civil Action No. 1:97cv10-D-D (N.D. Miss. Apr. 8, 1997) Cited 13 times
Civil Action No. 1:97cv10-D-D April 8, 1997 MEMORANDUM OPINION GLEN DAVIDSON, Chief Judge, District Presently before the court is the motion of the plaintiff Michael D. Rogers to remand this action to the Circuit Court of Winston County, Mississippi. Finding that the motion is well taken, the court shall grant it and return this cause to state court. Also pending before the court is the motion of the defendants to dismiss defendant Randy Eaves from this action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). As
1st Nat. Reserve, L.C. v. Vaughan
931 F. Supp. 463 (E.D. Tex. 1996) Cited 11 times
No. 1:96-CV 0050. May 20, 1996. Kerwin Brent Stone, Moore Landrey Garth Jones Burmeister Hulett, Beaumont, TX, for 1st National Reserve L.C. Bruce Manuel Partain, Jim Mitchell Smith, Wells Peyton Beard Greenberg Hunt Crawford, Beaumont, TX, for John Kennedy Vaughan, Individually aka Kenny Vaughn dba International Currency Reserve, Jeffery S. Knight, Individually dba International Currency Reserve. MEMORANDUM OPINION COBB, District Judge. I. BACKGROUND. Today the court considers whether the defendants
Section 1441 - Removal of civil actions
28 U.S.C. § 1441 Cited 49,894 times 149 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.”

Lassiter et al v. Pacificare Life and Health Insurance Company et al

12 Cited authorities

Holding that the rule that a federal defense does not suffice to show that a claim arises under federal law applies "even if the defense is anticipated in the plaintiff's complaint, and even if both parties concede that the federal defense is the only question truly at issue"

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"

Holding that private actors have no federal cause of action for a violation of the Federal Drug and Cosmetic Act

Rejecting admiralty jurisdiction and citing Hollister for the proposition "that an injury to a ship construction worker on board a ship under construction and lying in navigable waters is not a maritime tort"

Holding that the "removing party bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction."

Holding that amending complaint after denial of a motion to remand was taking advantage of the federal forum and constituted waiver

Finding suppression claim sufficiently pled based on the particular circumstances, that defendant, an insurance agent, owed plaintiff a duty to disclose to her that the disputed policy duplicated her Medicaid benefits and was thus unnecessary

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.”