Sibilia v. Makita Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding insufficient and rejecting as “mere speculation” the defendant’s contention that “the severe nature of Plaintiff's injuries and the damages Plaintiff seeks[] make it clear that Plaintiff's damages exceed[] $75,000”
• “[R]emoval would be appropriate if Defendant had used an ‘other paper’ under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b
• “[R]emoval would be appropriate if Defendant had used an ‘other paper’ under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) to establish the jurisdictional amount.”
• “[R]emoval would be appropriate if Defendant had used an ‘other paper’ under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b
• “[R]emoval would be appropriate if Defendant had used an ‘other paper’ under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b
• “[R]emoval would be appropriate if Defendant had used an ‘other paper’ under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).