Schmeling v. Nordam

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “removal based on preemption is permissible only if federal law provides a replacement cause of action”
• noting that plaintiff may not defeat removal by failing to plead federal questions that are essential elements of the plaintiffs claim
• explaining that the interests of “comity and prudence” dictate that courts avoid addressing needlessly the first prong, which will frequently require a discussion of the merits of the preemption defense
• holding that complete preemption is “a description of the specific situation in which a federal law not only preempts a state law to some degree but also substitutes a federal cause of action for the state cause of action, thereby manifesting Congress’s intent to permit removal”
• reviewing dicta in Caterpillar and concluding that “[t]he Caterpillar Court purported merely to apply the complete preemption doctrine, not to amend it”
• reviewing dicta in Caterpillar and concluding that “[t]he Caterpillar Court purported merely to apply the complete preemption doctrine, not to amend it”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).