Miller v. Newjersey

How courts have described this case

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

• ruling that “conclusory and vague allegations” cannot plausibly show the existence of newly acquired information
• concluding that allowing defendant that has not been served to remove to federal court “‘does not contravene’ Congress’s intent to combat fraudulent joinder” (quoting Encompass Ins., 902 F.3d at 153)
• recognizing that “a state law failure-to-warn claim that depends on newly acquired information . . . that Defendants could have added to their label without FDA approval . . . is not preempted”
• finding that pre-service removal by a forum defendant is authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2)
• recognizing snap removal “so long as a federal district court can assume jurisdiction over the action”
• explaining that courts must adhere to this principle in determining whether or not to exercise jurisdiction

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).