Perry v. Blum

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “any document received prior to receipt of the initial 14 pleading cannot trigger the second thirty-day removal period.”
• holding a Tribal Economic Development Authority, 12 formed under the laws of the tribe, enjoyed sovereign immunity
• explaining that judicial estoppel is only appropriate where, among other things, a party takes “clearly inconsistent” positions”
• explaining that judicial estoppel “operates to prevent a litigant from taking a litigation position that is inconsistent with a litigation position successfully asserted by him” in the same or earlier proceeding
• explaining that judicial estoppel \prevent[s] a litigant from taking a litigation position that is inconsistent with a litigation position successfully asserted by him in an earlier phrase of the same case or in an earlier court proceeding\
• reviewing for abuse of discretion a district court’s decision on a motion to add or drop a party pursuant to Rule 21

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).