Russell Corp. v. American Home Assurance Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that “bright line limitations on federal removal jurisdiction . . . are an inevitable feature of a court system of limited jurisdiction that strictly construes the right to remove”
• “[T]he law is well settled that in cases involving multiple defendants all defendants must consent to the removal of a case to federal court.”
• abrogation on other grounds recognized by Overlook Gardens Props., LLC v. ORIX USA, L.P., 927 F.3d 1194 (11th Cir. 2019)
• “Section 1447(c) specifies two grounds for remanding a removed case: (1) lack of subject matter jurisdiction; or (2) [a] procedural defect in the removal of the case.”
• “Like all rules governing removal, [the] unanimity requirement must be strictly interpreted and enforced because of significant federalism concerns arising in the context of removal jurisdiction.” (citation omitted)
• “Like all rules governing removal, this unanimity requirement must be strictly interpreted and enforced because of the significant federalism concerns arising in the context of federal removal jurisdiction.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).