Pantalone v. Aurora Pump Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that to succeed on a motion to remand under the federal remove statutes, “a defendant’s showing need not go beyond adequately supported assertions,” in its Notice of Removal. (citation omitted)
• “The propriety of removal under the statute should be considered at the time of removal.”
• manufacturer acting pursuant to contract with, and according to specifications of, the United States Navy, establishes first prong of federal officer removal statute
• removal period was triggered even though plaintiff did not specify whether exposure to defendant’s asbestos-containing products occurred “during his Navy service” or “during his post-Navy career”
• “Although a defendant must ‘apply a reasonable amount of intelligence in ascertaining removability,’ it need not “look beyond the initial pleading for facts giving rise to removability.”
• complaint alleged that plaintiff “was exposed to various asbestos containing products while in the U.S. Navy... during the years 1951-1956”; removal period was triggered by discovery responses disclosing make the case removable. (Id. at 16

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).