47 Cited authorities

Martin v. Franklin Capital
546 U.S. 132 (2005) Cited 4,810 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding “absent unusual circumstances, attorney's fees should not be awarded when the removing party has an objectively reasonable basis for removal”
Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams
482 U.S. 386 (1987) Cited 11,249 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 10,445 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"
Vaden v. Discover Bank
556 U.S. 49 (2009) Cited 2,336 times 47 Legal Analyses
Holding that federal courts may "look through" a § 4 petition to determine whether "the parties' underlying substantive controversy" gives rise to subject-matter jurisdiction
Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila
542 U.S. 200 (2004) Cited 2,705 times 30 Legal Analyses
Holding that states cannot create new causes of action that conflict with ERISA's " ‘interlocking, interrelated, and interdependent remedial scheme,’ " located in § 502 of ERISA
Beneficial Nat. Bank v. Anderson
539 U.S. 1 (2003) Cited 2,142 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that the National Bank Act, 12 U.S.C. §§ 85, 86, completely preempts state-law usury claims against national banks
Holmes Grp., v. Vornado Air Circulation Sys., Inc.
535 U.S. 826 (2002) Cited 1,392 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
Rivet v. Regions Bank
522 U.S. 470 (1998) Cited 1,577 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that, because federal claim preclusion is a defense, and not an aspect of a plaintiff's cause of action, it is "not a proper basis for removal"
Manguno v. Prudential Prop. Cas. Ins. Co.
276 F.3d 720 (5th Cir. 2002) Cited 2,675 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that where the petition does not include a specific monetary demand, the amount-in-controversy requirement is met if it is apparent from the face of the petition that the claims are likely to exceed $75,000
Gully v. First Nat. Bank
299 U.S. 109 (1936) Cited 2,689 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the federal controversy cannot be "merely a possible or conjectural one"
Section 1331 - Federal question
28 U.S.C. § 1331 Cited 97,490 times 134 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."
Section 1447 - Procedure after removal generally
28 U.S.C. § 1447 Cited 33,127 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 2201 - Creation of remedy
28 U.S.C. § 2201 Cited 24,544 times 61 Legal Analyses
Granting district courts the authority to create a remedy with the force of a final judgment
Section 1125 - False designations of origin, false descriptions, and dilution forbidden
15 U.S.C. § 1125 Cited 15,284 times 320 Legal Analyses
Holding "the person who asserts trade dress protection has the burden of proving that the matter sought to be protected is not functional"
Section 1338 - Patents, plant variety protection, copyrights, mask works, designs, trademarks, and unfair competition
28 U.S.C. § 1338 Cited 5,399 times 71 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"
Section 1051 - Application for registration; verification
15 U.S.C. § 1051 Cited 3,790 times 123 Legal Analyses
Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark
Section 2202 - Further relief
28 U.S.C. § 2202 Cited 2,573 times
Permitting court to issue "[f]urther necessary or proper relief based on a declaratory judgment"
Section 1121 - Jurisdiction of Federal courts; State and local requirements that registered trademarks be altered or displayed differently; prohibition
15 U.S.C. § 1121 Cited 1,409 times 4 Legal Analyses
Granting federal courts original and appellate jurisdiction over claims arising under the Lanham Act
Section 37.001 - Definition
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 37.001 Cited 260 times
Defining "person" to mean "an individual, partnership, joint-stock company, unincorporated association or society, or municipal or other corporation of any character"

SSG Baseball LLC v. Select Sports Group LLC

47 Cited authorities

Holding “absent unusual circumstances, attorney's fees should not be awarded when the removing party has an objectively reasonable basis for removal”

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 federal courts may "look through" a § 4 petition to determine whether "the parties' underlying substantive controversy" gives rise to subject-matter jurisdiction

Holding that states cannot create new causes of action that conflict with ERISA's " ‘interlocking, interrelated, and interdependent remedial scheme,’ " located in § 502 of ERISA

Holding that the National Bank Act, 12 U.S.C. §§ 85, 86, completely preempts state-law usury claims against national banks

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

Holding that, because federal claim preclusion is a defense, and not an aspect of a plaintiff's cause of action, it is "not a proper basis for removal"

Holding that where the petition does not include a specific monetary demand, the amount-in-controversy requirement is met if it is apparent from the face of the petition that the claims are likely to exceed $75,000

Holding that the federal controversy cannot be "merely a possible or conjectural one"

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."

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"

Granting district courts the authority to create a remedy with the force of a final judgment

Holding "the person who asserts trade dress protection has the burden of proving that the matter sought to be protected is not functional"

Granting exclusive jurisdiction to the district courts "of any civil action arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents, . . . copyrights and trademarks"

Requiring a filing of a Statement of Use to register a mark

Permitting court to issue "[f]urther necessary or proper relief based on a declaratory judgment"

Granting federal courts original and appellate jurisdiction over claims arising under the Lanham Act

Defining "person" to mean "an individual, partnership, joint-stock company, unincorporated association or society, or municipal or other corporation of any character"