Halsne v. Liberty Mutual Group

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co., has “consistently been applied to cases in which the petition at the time of the removal expressly stated a claim in excess of the jurisdictional amount, and therefore, removal jurisdiction had already attached.”
• accepting binding stipulation that any recovery would be limited to less than $75,000 as basis for remand
• finding where punitive damages were pivotal in determining the amount in controversy, the Iowa state court petition was not removable on its face, and therefore the plaintiff's post-removal stipulation clarified, rather than amended, the amount sought at the time of removal
• \Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure stands as a caution to casual or manipulative entry into\ stipulations to lend support to remand motions.
• “Instead of the ‘legal certainty’ test, which might otherwise obtain, the defendant is required to prove by the preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional amount.”
• “Here the proffered stipulation indicates that the value of the claim at the time of removal did not exceed the jurisdictional minimum, in a situation where pleading rules make the amount in controversy on the face of the complaint ambiguous at best.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).