Entrekin v. Fisher Scientific Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that oral communications, “made in an informal setting without any transcription or simultaneous reduction to written form about such a matter as settlement-negotiations, are incapable of triggering the thirty-day limitation for remov al”
• providing an early application of the \bright-line rule\ and explanation for why it is preferred
• emphasizing the “express statutory requirement of a writing” under § 1446(b)(3)
• “Whenever [ ] subject matter jurisdiction is absent, the district court must remand the case to the state court upon either motion or sua sponte.”
• “[A settlement] offer on the part of the defendant, as opposed to the plaintiff, also apparently does not implicate the [sic] 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b
• “Whenever [ ] subject matter jurisdiction is absent, the district court must remand the case to the state court upon either motion or sua sponte.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).