Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “the fact that ARCO’s complaint ma[de] repeated references to” federal law was insufficient to confer jurisdiction
• holding that ordinarily a case may not be removed on the basis of a federal defense unless the \complete preemption doctrine\ applies
• holding that union members’ suit based on contract that was independent of a collective bargaining agreement was not preempted and not removable
• holding that a defendant cannot subject a state law claim to federal preemption by raising a defense that requires analysis of a CBA
• holding that, under the LMRA, a claim resting on interpretation of an individual employment contract does not have the same preemptive effect as one requiring interpretation of the CBA
• holding that federal jurisdiction exists when a federal question is presented on the face of the complaint

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).