Charles E. Abels and Irene C. Abels v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing \[t]he defendant's right to remove is to be determined according to the plaintiffs' pleading at the time of the petition for removal\
• “explaining that [l]ack of jurisdiction would make any decree in the case void and the continuation of the litigation in federal court futile . . . .”
• remanding case when it was not apparent that diversity jurisdiction existed, despite possibility of another removal in the future, as “a defect in subject matter jurisdiction can never be deemed harmless error.”
• “The defendant’s right to remove is to Pbuel ldmeatenr Cmoi.n ve. dJe anckcionrsding to the plaintiffs’ pleading at the time of the petition for removal.”
• “Because lack of jurisdiction would make any decree in the case void and the continuation of the litigation in federal court futile, the removal statute should be strictly construed and all doubts should be resolved in favor of remand.”
• “Because lack of jurisdiction would make any decree in the case void and the continuation of the litigation in federal court futile, the removal statute should be strictly construed and all doubts should be resolved in favor of remand.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).