Jackson v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that § 1441(b) did not preclude removal because defendant was not properly served prior to the removal petition
• finding that a defendant’s “consent to removal was not required” because it had not “been properly served”
• finding that the forum defendant rule would have barred removal if the forum defendant \had been properly served .... That it ultimately was served does not affect the propriety of removal.\
• “Complete diversity clearly exists here[.]”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).