Marvin Lumber & Cedar Co. v. Johnson

How courts have described this case

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

• reading removal statute to avoid the “absurd” result of permitting removal based on merely “a technicality in a literal reading of” the removal statute
• applying forum defendant rule to preclude named defendant who was a citizen of forum state and who had not yet been served with process from removing action to federal court
• also applying the “service” interpretation, and further finding that a different 20 interpretation would lead to “patently absurd” results
• “Defendants are both forum defendants and permitting their removal of this case because of a 28 technicality in a literal reading of § 1441(b)(2) would be absurd.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).