Special Investments Inc. v. Aero Air 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 a letter that recited plaintiff’s alleged injuries, computed the alleged special damages suffered, and then set out a demand was “not plainly a sham,” explaining that there was “no indicia of posturing or a lack of seriousness in the communication of [the] offer”
• “The necessity of independent research to ascertain the amount in controversy shows the discovery responses were not ‘unequivocally clear and certain.’” (cleaned up)
• “[T]he necessity of independent research to ascertain the amount in controversy shows the discovery responses were not ‘unequivocally clear and certain.’”
• \A discovery response may constitute an 'other paper' under the federal removal statute.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).