Luther Weems v. Louis Dreyfus Corporation

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the enactment of $ 1446(b
• holding remand not proper after applying the voluntary-involuntary rule
• precluding removability where nonresident defendant was dismissed by virtue of a directed verdict
• tracing development of the rule in Supreme Court cases: Powers v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co., 169 U.S. 92 (1898); Whitcomb v. Smithson, 175 U.S. 635 (1900); Am. Car & Foundry Co. v. Kettelhake, 236 U.S. 311 (1915); Great N. Ry. Co. v. Alexander, 246 U.S. 276 (1918)
• rule precludes removal when the issue of the non-diverse defendant’s dismissal has not been determined, avoiding duplication and expense of a case split between the federal and state courts
• “We hold that the voluntary-involuntary rule survived the 1949 amendment . . . .”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).