United States v. Harvin

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that even if defendants are correct that plaintiffs’ claims are improperly joined, the issue of “mere misjoinder” is more appropriately addressed to the state district court
• holding that even if defendants are correct that plaintiffs’ claims are improperly joined, the issue of ‘mere misjoinder’ is more appropriately addressed to the state district court
• holding that even if defendants are correct that plaintiffs’ claims are improperly joined, the issue of “mere misjoinder” is more appropriately addressed to the state district court
• finding that the joinder of defendants was not fraudulent because there was a possibility that the state court would find joinder proper

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).