Michael Stevens v. Derrick Wade

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that state-law claims “replete with federal law references” do not, without more, present a federal question
• noting that “federal jurisdiction over state-law causes of action” lies “only in a special and small class of cases” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• providing that a complaint replete with federal law references is not grounds for removal
• explaining that the Court must resolve any doubt about federal jurisdiction against the defendants
• noting that if the case was not properly removed due to a defect in subject matter jurisdiction, then “the district court was without jurisdiction to rule on its merits and . . . instead was required to remand”
• finding “no indication that Congress intended to divert a multitude of fact-intensive, state- law suits” to federal court merely because of the alleged failure to comply with federal law

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).