Cook v. Wikler’s Empirical Analysis
320 F.3d 431 · 2003
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1367 · 28 U.S.C. § 1441 · 28 U.S.C. § 1443 · 28 U.S.C. § 1447 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Quackenbush California Insurance Commissioner v. Allstate Insurance Co · Thermtron Products, Inc. v. Hermansdorfer · Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca · Foster v. Chesapeake Insurance · Thomas v. Shelton
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Those cases [including Lanier ] address whether district courts properly exercised their discretion in denying remand orders to which the parties seeking remand seemingly otherwise would have been entitled.... These cases appear premised on avoiding unfairness or waste based on a judgment that the plaintiffs seeking remand had “waived a right to object to procedural irregularities” by unduly delaying their motions to remand. Lanier, 843 F.2d at 905 . We do not read these cases to suggest that the equitable doctrine there applied — essentially a specific form of laches recognized by some Circuits to deny remand where a plaintiff has failed to diligently pursue its remand rights— completely divested those district courts of their authority to remand in those situations. Laches is, of course, an affirmative defense to a claim, and the party asserting it bears the burden of proof.... The defense does not negate the claim itself, but estops the granting of the relief sought after a consideration of the equitable merits of the claim.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“A motion to remand the case on the basis of any defect other than lack of subject matter jurisdiction must be made within 30 days after the fifing of the notice of removal under section 1446(a). If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.”
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.