Nevada v. Bank of America Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that a dispute whether the FDCPA covers mortgage servicers did not give rise to a federal issue
• holding that a state “has a specific, concrete interest in eliminating any deceptive practices that may have contributed to” a housing crisis
• reasoning that the references to federal law in the Attorney General’s complaint were alternative theories for the claims the Attorney General brought under state law
• noting that when Nevada alleged only state law causes of action to protect Nevada residents, “the claim of sovereign protection from removal arises in its most powerful form”
• recognizing “Nevada’s sovereign interest in protecting its citizens and economy from deceptive mortgage practices”
• emphasizing that courts must 15 strictly construe removal statutes, rejecting removal jurisdiction in favor of remand to 16 the state court if any doubts as to the right of removal exist

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).