835 F. Supp. 325 - Holt v. Lockheed Support Systems, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

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

1. “... The action before us was filed in state court. The removal statute allows removal only of a “civil action brought in State court of which the district courts have original jurisdiction .... ” The supplemental jurisdiction statute is not a source of original subject matter jurisdiction, and a removal petition therefore may not base subject matter jurisdiction on the supplemental jurisdiction statute. Absent complete pre-emption, the plaintiffs in a nondiversity action are masters of their complaint and may avoid federal subject-matter jurisdiction by relying exclusively on state law. Complete pre-emption is not at issue in this action. At the time of removal, the plaintiffs’ complaint asserted no claim giving the district court diversity or federal-question jurisdiction, so the plaintiffs have properly avoided federal subject-matter jurisdiction. The district court therefore erred in denying the plaintiffs’ motion to remand. Without proper removal, a state-court action does not belong in federal court in the first place, and it is wrong to even consider supplemental jurisdiction.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Wrobbel v. Asplundh Construction Corp.

2. “Defendant’s application of 28 U.S.C. § 1367 would impermissibly broaden this court’s removal jurisdiction, particularly under the circumstances of these cases. Even assuming that supplemental jurisdiction is viable in this scenario, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (c)(4), a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over a claim when exceptional circumstances exist, and when there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction. We think that the circumstances of this case provide ample reason for declining jurisdiction.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 894 F. Supp. 697 - J. Aron & Co. v. Chown

3. “a single thing or identity in which the plaintiffs have a common and undivided interest, and which neither can enforce in the absence of the other.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re Gas Water Heater Prod. Litigation