Madison Cnty. v. Pittman, 138 S. Ct. 983 (2018). · Go Syfert
Search
Madison Cnty. v. Pittman, 138 S. Ct. 983 (2018). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
22 citation events (22 in the last 25 years) across 9 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Kitts v. Cashco, Inc. (nmd, 2020-04-01)
Treatment trajectory · 2018 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2018 2022 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Kitts v. Cashco, Inc.
D.N.M. · 2020 · confidence medium
Soto waived removal by also filing a motion to dismiss in state court.” Id. at 1098.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Szuszalski v. Fields
D.N.M. · 2019 · confidence medium
Id. at 1091. “[T]hough the City had not yet served process on Soto, Soto filed three documents in state court in response to the 7 Even if Ms. Lopez should have filed her express consent within 30 days of the date she was served, an argument could be made that such a deadline was a procedural defect that she cured when she filed her consent on April 17, 2019.7 Cf. Sheldon v. Khanal, 502 F. App’x 765, 770 (10th Cir. 2012) (finding that failure to attach summons to notice of removal “is a procedural defect that can be cured, either before or after the 30-day removal period”) (citation om…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Lowe v. United Services Automobile Association
W.D. Okla. · 2019 · confidence medium
Further, “parties cannot waive subject-matter jurisdiction” and “can challenge it at any time prior to final judgment.” Id. at 1093 (internal quotation omitted).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." In Re: Opana ER Antitrust Litigation
N.D. Ill. · 2022 · signal: see also · confidence low
As the Supreme Court explained, a defendant’s burden under the rule of reason is to justify the reverse payment, not the settlement containing the reverse payment: “[A] reverse payment, where large and unjustified, can bring with it the risk of significant anticompetitive effects; one who makes such a payment may be unable to explain and to justify it . . . .” Id.; see also In re Lipitor Antitrust Litig., 868 F.3d 231, 256 (3d Cir. 2017) (holding that “defendants have the burden of justifying the rather large reverse payment here, and they offer no reason why those other elements of th…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
MADISON COUNTY, ILLINOIS
v.
Reginald PITTMAN.
No. 17–750..
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 20, 2018.
138 S. Ct. 983
Published

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.