Graham A. Peters v. The Lincoln Electric Company

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that “claims that merely peripherally ‘relate to’ ERISA ... do not create a federal cause of action”
• holding that if a defendant is able to ascertain for the first time from the plaintiffs deposition testimony that a case is removable, then a notice of removal is properly filed if it is filed within 30 days of that deposition
• finding that a reply affidavit filed one week before a hearing still provided the opponent sufficient time to respond
• explaining that the “complete preemption” doctrine gives federal courts jurisdiction over Nos. 05-5097/5101/5103/5104 Briscoe et al. v. Fine et al. Page 14 claims that would otherwise be cognizable only in state court
• noting that “courts have held that the absence of a date” on a statement with § 1746’s penalty-of-perjury language “does not render [it] invalid if extrinsic evidence could demonstrate the period when the document was signed”
• allowing use of deposition testimony to ascertain plaintiff’s state law claim was related to retirement plan and thus preempted by ERISA

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).