Skip to main content
· 1/10/1898

Powers v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co.

Citations

  • 169 U.S. 92
  • 18 S. Ct. 264
  • 42 L. Ed. 673
  • 1898 U.S. LEXIS 1474

Syllabus

<p>A judgment of tlie Circuit Court of the United States, against a party contending that that court has no jurisdiction because the case has not been duly removed from a state court, may be reviewed as to the question of jurisdiction by this court upon writ of error directly to that court under the act of March 3, 1891, c. 517, § 5.</p> <p>An order of the Circuit Court of the United States, remanding a case to a state court, is not reviewable by this court.</p> <p>An action brought in a state court, which, by reason of joinder as defendants of citizens of the same State as the plaintiff, is not a removable one under the act, of Congress until after the time proscribed by statute or rule of court of the State for answering the declaration, may, upon a subsequent discontinuance in that court by the plaintiff against those defendants, making the action for the first time a removable one by reason of diverse citizenship of the parties, be removed into the Circuit Court of the United States by the defendant upon a petition filed immediately after such discontinuance, and before taking any other steps indefence of the action.</p> <p>If sufficient grounds for the removal of a case into the Circuit Court of tlieUnited States are shown upon the face of the petition for removal and of the record of the state court, the petition for removal may be amended in' the Circuit Court of the United States by stating more fully and distinctly the facts which support those grounds.</p> <p>The right of a party to insist that a case has been duly removed into the Circuit Court of the United States is not lost or impaired by his making defence in the state court, after that court had denied his petition for removal.</p>

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that a case was removable because the plaintiff had discontinued its action against all nondiverse citizens
  • holding that the time period to 17 remove begins only after complete diversity is established
  • noting that the removal limitations provision “clearly manifests the intention of Congress that the petition for removal should be filed at the earliest possible opportunity”
  • stating that manner in which information allowing defendant to determine removability is acquired is “immaterial”
  • allowing removal on basis of diversity where plaintiff “discontinued” claims against resident defendants when his case was called for trial in state court
  • “[W]hen th[e] plaintiff [voluntarily] discontinued his action as against the [non-diverse] defendants, the case for the first time became such a one as ... the [diverse] defendant ... was entitled to remove!]”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Gray, After Stating the Case

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.