State of Iowa v. Matthew Sherman Olson

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the second amended complaint filed post-removal should not have been considered in determining whether removal was appropriate
• holding that removal is to be “determined according to the plaintiffs' pleading at the time of the petition for removal”
• holding that removal jurisdiction must be determined based on the pleadings as they existed at the time of removal
• holding that removal is to be “determined according to the plaintiffs' pleading at the time of the petition for removal.”
• holding that removal is to be “determined according to the plaintiffs' pleading at the time of the petition for removal.”
• holding that removal is to be “determined according to the plaintiffs' pleading at the time of the petition for removal.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).