David C. Wilson v. Intercollegiate (Big Ten) Conference Athletic Association, an Unincorporated Association

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that defendants who could have initially removed but waited until after adverse state court rulings to do so were barred from extending the thirty day time limit
• noting that one purpose of § 1446(b) is “to prevent the delay and waste of resources involved in starting a case over in a second court after significant proceedings, extending over months or even years, may have taken place in the first court”
• viewing 30-day removal rule “against a background of general considerations relating to the proper allocation of decision-making responsibilities between state and federal courts”
• noting that one purpose of § 1446(b) is “to prevent the delay and waste of resources involved in starting a case over in a second court after significant proceedings, extending over months or even years, may have taken place in the first court”
• noting that one purpose of § 1446(b) is “to prevent the delay and waste of resources involved in starting a case over in a second court after significant proceedings, extending over months or even years, may have taken place in the first court”
• declining to apply the doctrine because the amended complaint did not alter the character of his due process and equal protection claims from the initial complaint

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).