Marshall Huffman Virginia Newton v. Saul Holdings Limited Partnership, a Maryland Limited Partnership

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that complaint seeking “in excess of $10,000” did not trigger the thirty-day clock for removal
• holding that deposition testimony provided sufficient notice that the amount in controversy exceed the jurisdictional limit and thus triggered the 30-day time period for re-movability
• holding that procedural defects in the removal process can be waived, though defects in the court’s subject matter jurisdiction cannot
• holding that complaint seeking “in excess of $10,000” did not trigger the thirty-day clock for removal, but deposition testimony that plaintiffs sought “more than $300,000” did
• holding that complaint seeking “in excess of $10,000” did not trigger the thirty-day clock for removal, but deposition testimony that plaintiffs sought “more than $300,000” did
• holding that defendant “could only guess” if the initial pleading that claimed damages “in excess of $10,000” HARRIS v. BANKERS LIFE AND CASUALTY CO. 13873 [7] Applying this interpretation of § 1446(b

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).