Holmstrom Ex Rel. OfficeMax v. Peterson

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that the legislative history “reflects a congressional fine-tuning of § 1447(c) in an attempt to identify motions to remand that are grounded in the precise directions that Congress has placed in the Judicial Code to govern removal”
• finding that a district court’s remand order, where a non-forum defendant removed the case before any defendants, including a forum defendant, had been served, was not reviewable on appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d
• providing insight into the statute’s purpose while affirming remand for lack of appellate jurisdiction
• “[F]ailure to comply with § 1441(b)’s forum defendant rule does not result in a lack of subject matter jurisdiction … .”
• “[FJailure to comply with § 1441(b)’s forum-defendant rule does not result in a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.”
• “Instead, the history reflects a congressional fine-tuning of § 1447(c) in an attempt to identify motions to remand that are grounded in the precise directions that Congress has placed in the Judicial Code to govern removal, i.e., the ‘legal requisites’ for removal.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).