Brown v. Jevic

How courts have described this case

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

• observing that “[t]he removal statute, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441-1452, does not categorically prohibit the filing of a second removal petition” and, therefore, “a second notice of removal is permissible” (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted)
• “Removal statutes are to be strictly construed, with all doubts to be resolved in favor of remand.”
• “In the typical case, where all defendants must consent to removal, a defendant who has not been served need not consent to removal.”
• “The removing party . . . carries a heavy burden of showing that at all stages of the litigation the case is properly before the federal court.”
• “Federal courts should not sanction devices intended to prevent a removal to a Federal court where one has that right.” (quoting Wecker v. Nat’l Enameling & Stamping Co., 204 U.S. 176, 186 (1907))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).