Still v. DeBuono

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “[sjince [the defendants opposing removal] are, practically speaking, in the shoes of petitioners, they should not have the power to frustrate th[e] right ... [of the removing defendant’s] statutory right to remove this case to a federal court.”
• consent for removal need not be obtained from nominal or formal parties to action
• consent for removal need not be obtained from nominal or formal parties to action
• “IDEA permits reimbursement . . . where parents enlist trained teachers, who are not certified under the statute, to educate their children, as long as the parent-sponsored services are ‘appropriate’ and the state-sponsored services were not”
• “Due to the harmony of interests between petitioners and State respondents in this case, the court realigns State respondents as petitioners for purposes of removal. Thus the removal petition was not defective because of State respondents’ failure to join in it.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).