City of Bowling Green v. Duncan

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 plain language of the statute must be followed but recognizing an exception for the “egregious” scenario where a defendant has “hawked” the state court docket and removed a case before service to any defendant has occurred
• holding that the plain language of the statute must be followed but recognizing an exception for the “egregious” scenario where a defendant has “hawked” the state court docket and removed a case before service to any defendant has occurred
• adopting approach that remand is appropriate only if the plaintiff has not yet served any defendant
• interpreting the text to mean that “an out-of-state defendant may remove a diversity case if at least one defendant–and no forum defendant–has been served”
• “Under the plain, unambiguous language of Section 1441(b)(2), an out-of-state defendant may remove a diversity case if at least one defendant—and no forum defendant—has been served.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).