Michael Spielman v. Genzyme Corp. And Genzyme Development Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• “[D]etermining whether a case belongs in federal court should be done quickly, without an extensive fact- finding inquiry.”
• explaining that a demonstration of timely filing on appeal is not appropriate “when the appellant does not, in the first instance, demonstrate timely filing” as allowing remand to the district court to make such a determination “encourages delay and wasteful use of scarce judicial resources”
• applying the “anniversary” method for calculating expiration 10 of limitations period
• “Plaintiff is incorrect ... that the First Circuit has not set forth the standard for determining whether [Defendant] has satisfied the jurisdictional amount.”
• “we reject [the] argument that Chapter 93A’s authorization of attorney’s fees requires that such fees be aggregated to the named plaintiff for purposes of determining federal jurisdiction”
• “It must appear to a legal certainty that the claim is really for less than the jurisdictional amount to justify dismissal.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).