Nguyen v. Kautz’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “We find the thirty-day time limit of section 1446(b) begins running upon receipt of the initial complaint only when the complaint explicitly discloses the plaintiff is seeking damages in excess of the federal jurisdictional amount. This rule ‘promotes certainty and judicial efficiency by not requiring courts to inquire into what a particular defendant may or may not subjectively know.’ Further, this rule prevents a plaintiff from disguising the amount of damages until after the thirty-day time limit has run to avoid removal to federal court. We therefore grant the petition for mandamus and direct the district court to reassume jurisdiction of the case and reinstate the case on its docket.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 385 F. Supp. 2d 839 - LaPree v. Prudential Financial

2. “[In re Willis ] has great practical implications for plaintiffs. It means that in Iowa, plaintiffs who want the 30-day time limit to begin running immediately must do one of two things: (1) state in their petition that the amount in controversy exceeds the federal jurisdictional requirement, if Iowa Code § 619.18 is interpreted to allow such a statement; or (2) serve the defendant with a statement of the same separate from the petition. If the plaintiff never serves the defendant with notice that the amount in controversy exceeds the federal jurisdictional amount, the defendant will be able to remove the case for up to one year after the commencement of the action.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 385 F. Supp. 2d 839 - LaPree v. Prudential Financial