Joseph Harmon and Marilyn Harmon v. Oki Systems and Crown Equipment Corporation

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that defendant’s failure to include amount in controversy in notice of removal was “procedural defect” rather than substantive issue with subject matter jurisdiction, and thus affirming the denial of plaintiffs motion to remand
• considering post-removal interrogatories to evaluate whether federal subject matter jurisdiction existed when a case was removed
• considering post-removal interrogatories to evaluate whether federal subject matter jurisdiction existed when a case was removed
• district court did not abuse discretion by overlooking moving defendant’s technical failure to comply with local summary judgment rule where opposing party was not prejudiced
• defects in notice of removal’s jurisdictional allegations could be cured two years after removal, so long as evidence showed that jurisdiction existed at time of removal
• “[S]hould a court really be barred from considering reliable evidence . . . merely because the evidence was not in the record on the date of removal? The test should simply be whether the evidence sheds light on the situation which existed when the case was removed.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).