Griffioen v. Cedar Rapids and Iowa City Railway Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that “[t]he exclusive, federal cause of action is the hinge on which the door to the federal courthouse swings”
• holding that opportunity for co-defendants to alert the court to any falsities and Rule 11 sanctions are sufficient to justify requiring only claim of consent to satisfy removal requirements
• holding that the ICCTA’s administrative cause of action did not provide the plaintiff with a federal cause of action because the plaintiffs claims did “not fall within the scope of [the ICCTA’s] substantive framework”
• commenting that a timeframe for a first-served defendant to consent to a later-served defendant’s removal under § 1446(b)(2)(C
• finding that the plain language, purposes, and legislative history of the express preemption provision all supported a conclusion that Congress intended to completely preempt “certain state-law claims”
• declining to adopt a rule “that places form over substance” in interpreting 28 U.S.C. § 1446

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).