Morris v. Nuzzo’s Empirical Analysis
718 F.3d 660 · 2013
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 5 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1404 · 28 U.S.C. § 1441 · 28 U.S.C. § 1447
Relies on Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets · Wilson v. Republic Iron & Steel Co. · Healy Nh v. Ratta · Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. v. Henson · Wecker v. National Enameling & Stamping Co.
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The question before us is whether the district court erred in applying the fraudulent joinder doctrine to Nuzzo, whose presence triggers the forum defendant rule but does not compromise the parties’ complete diversity. In other words, we are asked to determine whether the fraudulent joinder doctrine creates an exception to the forum defendant rule. It does not appear that any court of appeals has answered this question. The few district, courts that have decided the issue are split. See, e.g., Yellen v. Teledne Continental Motors, Inc., 832 F.Supp.2d 490 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 6, 2011) (fraudulent joinder doctrine applies to a diverse forum defendant); Sargent v. Cassens Corp., No. 06 CV 1042, 2007 WL 1673289 (S.D. Ill. June 7, 2007) (same); but see Yount v. Shashek, 472 F.Supp.2d 1055 (S.D. Ill. 2006) (fraudulent joinder doctrine does not apply to a diverse forum defendant); Davenport v. Toyota Motor Sales, No. 09 CV 532, 2009 WL 4923994 (S.D. Ill. Dec. 14, 2009) (same).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“In other words, the forum defendant rule disallows federal removal premised on diversity in cases where the primary rationale for diversity jurisdiction-to protect defendants against presumed bias of local courts-is not a concern because at least one defendant is a citizen of the forum state.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Graff“A civil action otherwise removable solely on the basis of the jurisdiction under section 1332(a) of this title [diversity jurisdiction] may not be removed if any of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Graff
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.