Walton v. Bayer Corporation

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that an “inconsequential defect in removal papers” does not “deprive the district court of jurisdiction over a case removed to it”
• noting that because judicial estoppel's purpose is to deter fraud in litigation, judicial estoppel should prevent a party from taking a position in state court counter to the position it used to obtain remand in federal court
• finding no impediment to district court adjudicating case where summonses 1 See also Herz v. Hamilton, No. 4:17-CV-00090-JVB (N.D. Ind. Jan. 18, 2018) (citing Herz v. Hamilton, 2015 WL 1224516 (S.D. Ind. Mar. 17, 2015)
• a manufacturer that conceals a drug’s adverse side effects from physicians is not protected under the learned intermediary doctrine
• “[When a] plaintiff wager[s] her entire claim on being proved right about [an interlocutory ruling], considerations of judicial economy justify] immediate appellate review.”
• “a totally 23 inconsequential defect in removal papers [does not] deprive the district court of jurisdiction 24 over a case removed to it”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).