Marcel v. Pool Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• relying on plaintiff’s post-removal answers to interrogatories which clarified the amount of special damages being alleged in the complaint
• describing the definition used by the Board in its case and deferring to it
• demonstrating failure to bind plaintiff, where plaintiff, nine months after defendant filed its notice of removal, filed a motion to remand, in which he stipulated merely that his claim is not worth the $50,000 minimal jurisdictional limit of the court
• injuries totaling $27,472.60 met the jurisdictional amount because of the plaintiff’s request for punitive damages
• “In cases in which, on the other hand, the plaintiff, by whatever means, seeks to reduce, rather than clarify, his demand after removal, the plain language of St. Paul Mercury and the rationale of ANPAC unequivocally bar remand for want of jurisdictional amount.”
• describing ANPAC as “narrowly drawn\ and \unusual”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).