Brown v. Jevic’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 2 district ·

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

1. “For a removal predicated upon diversity of citizenship, a proper exercise of federal jurisdiction requires satisfaction of the amount in controversy requirement as well as complete diversity between the parties, that is, every plaintiff must be of diverse state citizenship from every defendant. The doctrine of fraudulent joinder represents an exception to the requirement that removal be predicated solely upon complete diversity. In a suit with named defendants who are not of diverse citizenship from the plaintiff, the diverse defendant may still remove the action if it can establish that the non-diverse defendants were “fraudulently” named or joined solely to defeat diversity jurisdiction____[T]his court has held that joinder is fraudulent if “there is no reasonable basis in fact or colorable 17 ground supporting the claim against the joined defendant, or no real intention in good faith to prosecute the action against the defendant or seek a joint judgment. ” If the district court determines that the joinder was “fraudulent” in this sense, the court can “disregard, for jurisdictional purposes, the citizenship of certain nondiverse defendants, assume jurisdiction over a case, dismiss the nondiverse defendants, and thereby retain jurisdiction.” If, however, the district court determines that it does not have subject-matter jurisdiction over the removed action because the joinder was not fraudulent, it must remand to state court [if no other basis for subject matter jurisdiction”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Bradley-Williams v. Agency Ins. Co. of Md., Inc. · Yellen v. Teledne Continental Motors, Inc.

2. “Although this appeal does not involve a plaintiff that fraudulently named a non-diverse party to defeat diversity jurisdiction, the principle enunciated in In re Briscoe applies with equal force to the facts of this case. It was plainly improper for [plaintiff] to sue [debtor defendant] in state court after [debtor defendant] had filed for bankruptcy protection. To the extent [debtor defendant’s] status as a debtor not subject to removal deprived [other removal-eligible defendants] of a federal forum to which they were otherwise entitled, [plaintiffs] joinder of [debtor defendant] was fraudulent.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Yellen v. Teledne Continental Motors, Inc.

3. “all doubts should be resolved in favor of remand.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Bradley-Williams v. Agency Ins. Co. of Md., Inc.