American Car & Foundry Co. v. Kettlehake
Citations
- 236 U.S. 311
- 35 S. Ct. 355
- 59 L. Ed. 594
- 1915 U.S. LEXIS 1763
Syllabus
<p>Where there is a joint cause of action against defendants resident of plaintiff’s State and a non-resident defendant, in order to make the •case removable as to the latter because of the dismissal as to the former, the discontinuance as to the resident .defendants must have been the voluntary act of the plaintiff and have so taken the resident defendants out of the case as to leave the controversy one wholly between the plaintiff and the non-resident defendant.</p> <p>Under the practice in Missouri, when the court has sustained demurrers by some of the defendants and allowed plaintiff to take an involuntary non-suit as against them with leave to set it aside, the case is not then ended as against those defendants, nor is it until after af-firmance by the appellate court or the expiration of plaintiff’s time to appeal; the controversy does not become one solely between the plaintiff and the other defendants, and even if the latter are nonresidents of plaintiff’s State the case is not removable as to them. Powers v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry., 169 U. S. 92, distinguished.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- noting that “the discontinuance as to [the non-diverse defendant must be] voluntary on the part of the plaintiff’
- affirming that the case was nonremovable because the “plaintiff [was] compelled, by the adverse ruling of the court, to take an involuntary nonsuit”
- emphasizing that dismissals in Herman and Lathrop were on the merits
- involuntary nonsuit by plaintiff did not render the case removable when the nonsuit could be, and was, appealed
- affirming state court decision holding that action was not removable
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Day
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
58 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Great Northern Railway Co. v. AlexanderSupreme Court· 1918-03-04· cited 872×
- Gus Poulos and A.G.P. Marketing v. Naas Foods, Incorporated and Ranks, Hovis, McDougall Plc Group (Rhm Holdings U.S.A. Incorporated)Seventh Circuit· 1992-03-18· cited 321×
- Charlie Gaitor v. Peninsular & Occidental Steamship Company, Blue Steamship Company, and Shaw Brothers Shipping CompanyFifth Circuit· 1961-03-24· cited 172×
- Luther Weems v. Louis Dreyfus CorporationFifth Circuit· 1967-06-22· cited 135×
- John Insinga, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Mildred Insinga, Deceased v. Michelle Labella, Humana, Inc., D/B/A Biscayne Medical CenterEleventh Circuit· 1988-04-21· cited 71×
- Southern Railway Co. v. LloydSupreme Court· 1916-01-10· cited 65×
- Ribhi Othman and Yusif H. Mashni, Individually, and Doing Business as E-Z Market, a Partnership v. Globe Indemnity CompanyNinth Circuit· 1985-05-13· cited 63×
- Self v. General Motors Corp.Ninth Circuit· 1978-03-30· cited 61×
- Universal Truck & Equipment Co. v. Southworth-Milton, Inc.First Circuit· 2014-09-02· cited 54×
- Bentley v. Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co.Fifth Circuit· 1949-05-20· cited 48×
- Adv Indicator v. Acadia InsFifth Circuit· 2022-10-03· cited 46×
- Carolina Vasquez v. Alto Bonito Gravel Plant Corporation and Caterpillar, Inc.Fifth Circuit· 1995-07-03· cited 37×
- Warren Bros. v. Community Building Corp. of Atlanta, Inc.M.D. North Carolina· 1974-12-06· cited 29×
- Saylor v. General Motors Corp.E.D. Kentucky· 1976-07-27· cited 25×
- New York v. Local 144, Hotel, Nursing Home & Allied Health Services UnionS.D. New York· 1976-02-26· cited 24×
- Jane Bartlett Phillips, as of the Estate of Peter Richard Phillips, Deceased v. Unijax, Inc.Fifth Circuit· 1980-08-28· cited 23×
- Eugene Lemos v. Roy Fencl, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Richard J. KilmartinNinth Circuit· 1987-09-24· cited 18×
- Ennis v. Queen Insurance Company of AmericaW.D. Tennessee· 1973-06-29· cited 17×
- Vogel v. Merck & Co., Inc.S.D. Illinois· 2007-03-06· cited 16×
- Moulton v. National Farmers' Bank of OwatonnaD. Minnesota· 1928-07-02· cited 16×
Cites
3 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.