Baddie’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The defendant is not obligated to remove; rather, he has the choice either to submit to state court resolution of his claims, or to assert his right to a federal forum. If the defendant rejects the plaintiffs offer to litigate in state court and removes the action, the plaintiff must then choose between federal claims and a state forum. Plaintiffs in this case chose the state forum. They dismissed their federal claims and moved for remand with all due speed after removal. There was nothing manipulative about that straightforward tactical decision, and there would be little to be gained in judicial economy by forcing plaintiffs to abandon their federal causes of action before filing in state court.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 134 F. Supp. 2d 582 - Payne v. Parkchester North Condominiums

2. “The language of section 1447(c) refers to the payment of expenses ‘incurred as a result of the removal.’ When defendants remove a ease improperly, for example, they cause the plaintiffs to incur the expense of seeking a remand. That expense is a direct result of the removal, and section 1447(e) permits the plaintiffs to recoup that expense. In contrast, other fees and costs incurred in federal court after a removal may be related only tenuously to the removal, as when they replace similar fees and costs that would have been incurred in state court if the litigation had proceeded there. Such fees and costs cannot be considered ‘incurred as a result of the removal.’”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Aloha Tower Associates Piers 7, 8 & 9, Ltd. Partnership v. Millennium Aloha, Inc.

3. “was unauthorized because (1) section 1447(c) does not authorize an award of costs or fees when the initial removal was proper; and (2) it would be an abuse of discretion under any reading of the statute to penalize plaintiffs who, knowing that a state court forum is more important to them than their federal claims, nevertheless plead both state and federal claims in state court, with the intent to dismiss federal claims later to avoid federal court if the defendant removes.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 334 F. Supp. 2d 1236 - Pressman v. MERIDIAN MORTG. CO., INC.