Giese v. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the district court had remanded under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); Soley v. First National Bank of Commerce, 923 F.2d 406 (5th Cir. 1991); Hansen v. Blue Cross of California, 891 F.2d 1384, 1387-88 (9th Cir. 1989
• “Although plaintiffs do not contest defendants’ claim that this court has authority to consider this appeal, we are obligated to ensure that we have jurisdiction over this matter.”
• after noting that the “timing question is disposi-tive,” we proceeded to determine whether the district court found subject matter jurisdiction to have existed at the time of removal, only to have been allegedly defeated by some post-removal event(s

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).