Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 189 F. Supp. 2d 347 - Gray v. Rite Aid Corp.

189 F. Supp. 2d 347 - Gray v. Rite Aid Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

2002

Citation profile

2
cited by 2 later decisions
December 2004
most recently cited

2 district ·

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1446 · 28 U.S.C. § 1447

Relies on Hartley v. CSX Transportation, Inc. · Preaseau v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America · Eyak Native Village v. Exxon Corp. · Lovern v. General Motors Corp. · Borneman v. United States

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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Lovern is not to be read as granting a wholly risk-free choice to a defendant in its determination of whether to remove a case to federal court; the ground for removal need not appear beyond a reasonable doubt in a court order before the right to effect a removal may be unmistakably apparent. To the contrary, as Lovern noted, and as the many cases cited in [Link Telecomms., Inc. v. Sapperstein, 119 F.Supp.2d 536, 542 (D.Md.2000) ], have found, the Fourth Circuit “will allow the [district] court to rely on the face of the initial pleading and on the documents exchanged in the case by the parties to determine when the defendant had notice of the grounds for removal, requiring that those grounds be apparent within the four comers of the initial pleading or subsequent paper.” Lovern, 121 F.3d at 162 (emphasis added).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.