Ayotte v. Boeing Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• “What a defendant might have discovered by following up on clues or suggestions that federal jurisdiction may exist is irrelevant to the timeliness inquiry.”
• “Unlike other types of removal, the federal officer removal provision does not require the consent of other defendants.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cites

14 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Boyle v. United Technologies Corp.
  Supreme Court· 1988-06-27· cited 1,208×
• Willingham v. Morgan
  Supreme Court· 1969-10-13· cited 653×
• Watson v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc.
  Supreme Court· 2007-06-11· cited 584×
• Durham v. Lockheed Martin Corp.
  Ninth Circuit· 2006-04-25· cited 313×
• Evergreen Square v. Wisconsin Housing & Economic Development Authority
  Seventh Circuit· 2015-01-12· cited 183×
• Donald Schimmer v. Jaguar Cars, Inc.
  Seventh Circuit· 2004-10-19· cited 133×
• Hubert Walker v. Trailer Transit, Inc.
  Seventh Circuit· 2013-08-23· cited 100×
• Henry Ruppel v. CBS Corporation
  Seventh Circuit· 2012-11-30· cited 84×
• GE Betz, Incorporated v. Zee Company, Incorporated
  Seventh Circuit· 2013-05-03· cited 78×
• Michael Bauer v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.
  Seventh Circuit· 2017-01-05· cited 54×
• Alsup v. 3-Day Blinds, Inc.
  S.D. Illinois· 2006-06-08· cited 50×
• Brokaw v. Boeing Co.
  N.D. Illinois· 2015-10-05· cited 12×
• Pantalone v. Aurora Pump Co.
  D. Connecticut· 2008-09-18· cited 11×
• Elftmann v. Village of Tinley Park
  N.D. Illinois· 2016-06-09· cited 8×