Rodas v. Seidlin

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that derivative jurisdiction is “best understood as a procedural bar to the exercise of judicial power” rather than “an essential ingredient to federal subject matter jurisdiction.”
• collecting cases and noting that “in every case we located in which the Supreme Court discussed the matter of derivative 10 importantly, no matter how compelling, policy considerations do not answer the operative question: whether Congress clearly stated that § 1442(a)(1
• “[T]he doctrine creates a defect in removal, but is not an essential ingredient to federal subject matter jurisdiction.”
• ‘[I]n every case we located in which the Supreme Court discussed the matter of derivative jurisdiction, the matter appears to have been raised promptly upon removal, prior to adjudication on the merits.’
• to interpret state law, federal courts “determine how the state’s highest court would rule” and “defer to interpretations offered by state appellate courts unless there is a persuasive indication that the state supreme court would decide the issue differently”
• derivative jurisdiction is independent of a federal court’s subject-matter jurisdiction

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).