Rutherford v. Merck & Co., Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that Tapscott is an improper expansion of federal diversity jurisdiction, and misjoinder should be resolved by a state court
• holding that Tapscott is an improper expansion of federal diversity jurisdiction, and misjoinder should be resolved by a state court
• suggesting that fraudulent joinder as to a pharmacy would be proven if the pharmacy never dispensed a particular prescription drug to a plaintiff
• finding that a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is more “searching” than that applied when a party makes a claim of fraudulent joinder
• reasoning that “matters of state civil procedure, including, presumably, joinder of parties and claims, have no bearing on the existence or nonexistence of federal subject matter jurisdiction in a given case”
• detailing the \enormous judicial confusion engendered by the doctrine\ and concluding \no clear standards for the application of the doctrine have emerged\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).