Redlark v. Comm'r

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 landowner’s quiet-title claim for a prescriptive easement was preempted because it was, for all intents and purposes, a claim for adverse possession
• noting that the district court must “convert” the plaintiff’s claim into one arising under the ICCTA
• noting that the district court may allow the plaintiff to “amend her complaint to clarify the scope of her Termination Act claims before revisiting [the defend- ant’s] motion”
• quiet title claims preempted because they sought to exclude railroad from its property and govern maintenance of tracks
• “[A] defendant’s 30-day removal clock doesn’t begin until the basis for removal jurisdiction becomes ‘apparent within the four corners of the initial pleading or subsequent paper.’” (quoting Lovern v. Gen. Motors Corp., 121 F.3d 160, 162 (4th Cir. 1997))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).