Milstead Supply Co. v. Casualty Insurance

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that removing defendant did not need to obtain consent of non-removing defendant even though the non-removing defendant had been served with process three hours before the removing defendant filed a notice of removal
• excusing lack of unanimity where, among other reasons, the removing defendant had been \more than reasonably diligent\ in attempting to ascertain whether codefendant had been served
• excusing lack of unanimity where, among other reasons, the removing defendant had been “more than reasonably diligent” in attempting to ascertain whether codefendant had been served
• finding “that the exceptional circumstances of this case justify the following holding[:] ... joinder in or consent to the removal petition must be accomplished by only those defendants: (1) who have been served; and, (2) whom the removing defendant(s
• defendant allowed to amend “imperfect, general allegation of diversity jurisdiction”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).