Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc.

Holding that the supplemental jurisdiction statute permits the exercise of diversity jurisdiction over additional plaintiffs who fail to satisfy the minimum amount-in-controversy requirement, as long as the other elements of diversity jurisdiction are present and at least one named plaintiff does satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement

Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng'g & Mfg.

Holding "that the national interest in providing a federal forum for federal tax litigation is sufficiently substantial to support the exercise of federal-question jurisdiction."

Connecticut Nat. Bank v. Germain

Holding that § 1292 applies also to bankruptcy jurisdiction and is not displaced by § 158(d)

Lontz v. Tharp

Finding that after a plaintiff's state-law claims were transformed into federal claims, the complaint is then understood to state a federal question, which justifies removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1441

Healy v. Ratta

Finding that any "collateral effect" of a judgment "upon other and distinct controversies, may not be considered in ascertaining whether the jurisdictional amount is involved, even though their decision turns on the same question of law"

U.S. v. Meade

Holding that the defendant's state misdemeanor conviction under a general assault and battery statute, for assaulting his spouse is a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence"

Knudsen v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.

In Knudsen v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 411 F.3d 805 (7th Cir. 2005), the Seventh Circuit followed the Tenth Circuit's approach in Pritchett.

Pritchett v. Office Depot, Inc.

Holding that an action is "commenced" for the purpose of CAFA when such suit is filed in a court of proper jurisdiction, rather than when the suit is removed to federal court

Disabled in Action of Metro. N.Y. v. Hammons

Noting that the “sponsor/floor manager statement and floor and hearing colloquy” are among “the most authoritative and reliable materials of legislative history”

Hopkins v. Walker

In Hopkins, 244 U.S., at 490-491, the question was federal jurisdiction over a quiet title action based on the plaintiffs' allegation that federal mining law gave them the superior claim.

Section 1446 - Procedure for removal of civil actions

Granting a defendant 30 days to remove after receipt of the first pleading that sets forth a removable claim

Rule 3 - Commencing an Action

Stating that once the inmate has filed his motion with the clerk, "[t]he clerk must file the motion and enter it on the criminal docket of the case in which the challenged judgment was entered"

Rule 3 - Commencement of Action