ROWE, THOMAS H. v. TOWN OF CHAUTAUQUA

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that addresses may suffice if they provide a “substantial cushion and [are] bolstered by evidence that the number of class members who were not domiciled in California or might not qualify as [United States] citizens are likely covered by the cushion”
• “The impression that this case would qualify for the local or home-state controversy exception is easy to understand. . . . The problem is that this impression rests on guesswork.”
• “A person’s state of citizenship 25 is established by domicile, not simply residence, and a residential address in California 26 does not guarantee that the person’s legal domicile was in California.”
• “A person’s state 15 of citizenship is established by domicile, not simply residence, and a residential address in 16 California does not guarantee that the person’s legal domicile was in California.”
• “The stipulation left very little cushion, if any, to account for former employees who were not domiciled in California at the time this case was removed to federal court, because, for example, they had moved to another state.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).